PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

REVIEWER LETTER DEAR REVIEWER: September, 2007 The Alaska Board of Game will consider the attached book of regulatory proposals at its Fall, 2007 meeting to be held November 9-12, at the Yup’iit Piciryarait Cultural Center, in Bethel, Alaska. The proposals generally concern changes to the regulations governing hunting and the use of game in the Arctic and Western Regions. Members of the public, organizations, advisory committees, and department staff submitted these proposals, which are published essentially as they were received. The proposals are presented as brief statements summarizing the intended regulatory changes. In cases where confusion might arise or where the regulation is complex, proposed changes are also indicated in legal format. In this format, bolded and underlined words are additions to the regulation text, and capitalized words or letters in square brackets [XXXX] are deletions from the regulation text. You are encouraged to read all proposals presented in this book. Some regulations have statewide application and some regulations may affect other regions of the state. Also, some proposals recommend changes to multiple areas or regions. The proposals are set forth in the Table of Contents, which is not in roadmap order for the meeting. Prior to the meeting, the board will generate and make available to the public the order of proposals to be deliberated by the board, also known as the “roadmap.” The roadmap may be changed up to and during the meeting. Before taking action on these proposed changes to the regulations, the board would like your written comments and/or oral testimony on any effects the proposed changes would have on your activities. After reviewing the proposals, please send written comments to:

ATTN: BOG COMMENTS Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Boards Support Section P.O. Box 115526

Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Fax: 907-465-6094

Public comment, in combination with Advisory Committee comments and ADF&G staff presentations, provide the Board of Game with useful biological and socioeconomic data to form decisions. Comments may be submitted at any time until the public testimony period for that proposal and/or its subject matter is closed at the meeting and the board begins deliberations. As a practical matter, you are encouraged to mail or fax your written comments to the above Juneau address no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 26, 2007 to ensure inclusion in the board workbook. All comments received after that time will be presented to board members at the time

i

of the meeting, but may not be printed in the board workbook. Written comments will also be accepted during the board meeting and public testimony during the public testimony portion of the meeting is always appreciated. Written comments become public documents. When providing written comments on the proposals in this proposal book, please consider the following tips to help ensure board members and the public more fully understand recommendations to the board: Timely Submission: Submit written comments by fax or mail at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Comments received at least two weeks prior to the meeting are printed and cross referenced in the board members’ workbooks. Written comments received after the two-week period will be included in the workbooks will be provided to board members at the meeting and will not be cross referenced. Materials received during the meeting also are not cross referenced. If you provide written comments during a board meeting, submit 20 copies to Board Support Section staff, who will distribute your written comments to board members. If including graphs or charts, please indicate the source. List the Proposal Number: Written comments should indicate the proposal number(s) to which the comments apply. Written comments should specifically state “support” or “opposition” to the proposal(s). This will help ensure written comments are correctly noted for the board members. If the comments support a modification in the proposal, please indicate “support as amended” and provide a preferred amendment in writing. Do Not Use Separate Pages When Commenting on Separate Proposals: If making comments on more than one proposal, please do not use separate pieces of paper. Simply begin the next set of written comments by listing the next proposal number. Provide an Explanation: Please briefly explain why you are in support or opposition of the proposal. Board actions are based on a complete review of the facts involved in each proposal, not a mere calculation of comments for or against a proposal. Advisory committees and other groups also need to explain the rationale behind recommendations. Minority viewpoints from an advisory committee should be noted in advisory committee minutes along with the majority recommendation. The board benefits greatly from understanding the pro and cons of each issue. A brief description consisting of a couple of sentences is sufficient. Write Clearly: Comments will be photocopied so please use 8 1/2" x 11" paper and leave reasonable margins on all sides, allowing for hole punches. Whether typed or handwritten, use dark ink and write legibly. Use the Correct Address or Fax Number: Mail written comments to Board of Game Comments, ADF&G, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526; fax them to 907-465-6094; or deliver them to a Regional Boards Support Office. Advisory Committees: In addition to the above, please make sure the Advisory Committee meeting minutes reflect why the committee voted as it did. If the vote was split, include the minority opinion. A brief description consisting of a couple of sentences is sufficient. Detail the number in attendance (e.g., 12 of 15 members) and indicate represented interests such as subsistence, guides, trappers, hunters, wildlife viewers, etc.

ii

Pertinent policies and findings, proposals, written comment deadlines, meeting calendars and notices for the Board of Game meetings are posted on the Board Support website at http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/ . A tentative agenda for the November, 2007 Board of Game meeting is shown on page xii. A roadmap detailing the tentative order in which proposals will be made available in late October, 2007 at http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/ . Updated Status of the Meeting: After the board meeting begins, a recorded telephone message will provide current updates on the board's agenda and schedule. Dial (800) 764-8901 (in Juneau, call 465-8901). Additional Accommodations: Persons with a disability needing special accommodations in order to comment on the proposed regulations should contact the Boards Support Section at (907) 465-4110 no later than October 19th, 2007 to make any necessary arrangements. Kristy Tibbles, Executive Director Alaska Board of Game Alaska Department of Fish and Game (907) 465-4110

iii

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME

Table of Contents November 2007 Proposal Book

INTRODUCTION SECTION Page Number Reviewer Letter.......................................................................................................................... i-iii Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................... iv Tentative Meeting Schedule .......................................................................................................... v Board of Game Long-Term Meeting cycle............................................................................. vi-vii Board of Game Membership Roster ...........................................................................................viii Boards Support Section Staff........................................................................................................ ix Proposal Index ..........................................................................................................................x-xi Agenda ........................................................................................................................................xii Guidelines for Public Testimoy .................................................................................................xiii PROPOSAL SECTION Page Number BETHEL AREA – UNIT 18.....................................................................................................1-7 NOME AREA – UNIT 22.......................................................................................................8-29 KOZEBUE AREA – UNIT 23 .............................................................................................30-42 BARROW AREA – UNIT 26...............................................................................................43-47

iv

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME Tentative Meeting Schedule

2007/2008 Cycle

Location Dates Topic

Anchorage Fall, 2007 Bethel

October 4, 2007 Written Comments: September 28, 2007 November 9 – 12, 2007 Proposal Deadline: August 17, 2007 Written Comments: October 26, 2007

Skilak Loop Small Game Hunting and Guide Client Agreements for

Certain Drawing Hunts

Arctic/Western Region

Statewide, 2008 Anchorage

January 25 – 28, 2008 Proposal Deadline: November 2 , 2007 Written Comments: January 11, 2008

Statewide Regulations Cycle B

Spring, 2008 Fairbanks

February 29 – March 10, 2008 Proposal Deadline: December 7, 2007 Written Comments: February 15, 2008

Interior Region

For information about the Board of Game, contact:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Boards Support Section

P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Phone: (907) 465-4110 Fax: (907) 465-6094

Web address: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us

v

vi

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME MEETING CYCLE

The board meeting cycle generally occurs from October through March. The board considers changes to regulations on a region-based schedule. Each region will be discussed on a two-year cycle. When the regional area is before the board, the following regulations are open for consideration within that region: Trapping Seasons and Bag Limits -- All species General and Subsistence Hunting Seasons and Bag Limits -- All species (Except antlerless moose hunts as noted below) Wolf Control Implementation Plans Bag Limit for Brown Bears Areas Closed To Hunting Closures and Restrictions in State Game Refuges Management Areas Controlled Use Areas Areas Closed To Trapping Regulations specific to an area (e.g., Permits for Access to Round Island) will be taken up when the board is scheduled to consider regulations in that region. Proposals for changes to regulations pertaining to reauthorization of antlerless moose hunts, 5 AAC 85.045, and brown bear tag fee exemptions, 5 AAC 92.015, will be taken up annually, at spring meetings. The Board of Game does not consider proposals to statewide regulations in every meeting cycle. Instead, the Board of Game reviews statewide regulations on a four-year cycle, distributed between fall meetings, every other year. The list of statewide regulations and the associated “Cycle A” and “Cycle B” meeting schedule is set forth on the next page of this publication.

Regulations for: Will be considered: SOUTHEAST REGION Fall 2008 Fall 2010 Fall 2012 Game Management Units: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 SOUTHCENTRAL & SOUTHWEST REGIONS Spring 2009 Spring 2011 Spring 2013 Game Management Units: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 All GMUs: Brown Bear Tag Fees Reauthorization of Antlerless Moose Hunts ARCTIC AND WESTERN REGIONS Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Game Management Units: 18, 22, 23, 26A INTERIOR REGION Spring 2008 Spring 2010 Spring 2012 Game Management Units: 12, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26B, 26C All GMUs: Brown Bear Tag Fees Reauthorization of Antlerless Moose Hunts

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME STATEWIDE REGULATIONS SCHEDULE

STATEWIDE REGULATIONS: 5 AAC 92 STATEWIDE REGULATIONS: 5 AAC 92 CYCLE “A” : Winter 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022 CYCLE “B” : Winter 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020.

.001 Application of this Chapter .009 Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting or trapping .002 Liability for Violations .035 Permit for Temporary Commercial Use of Live Game .003 Hunter Education and Orientation Requirements .037 Permit for Falconry .004 Policy for Off-Road Vehicle Use for Hunting and Transporting Game .040 Permit for Taking of Furbearers with Game Meat .005 Policy for Changing Board Agenda .041 Permit to Take Beavers to Control Damage to Property .010 Harvest Tickets and Reports .043 Permit for Capturing Wild Furbearers for Fur Farming .011 Taking of Game by Proxy .044 Permit for hunting black bear with the use of bait or scent lures .012 Licenses and Tags .049 Permits, Permit Procedures, and Permit Conditions .013 Migratory bird hunting guide services .050 Required Permit Hunt Conditions and Procedures .018 Waterfowl Conservation Tag .051 Discretionary Trapping Permit Conditions & Procedures .019 Taking of Big Game for Certain Religious Ceremonies .052 Discretionary Permit Hunt Conditions and Procedures .020 Application of Permit Regulations and Permit Reports .062 Priority for Subsistence Hunting; Tier II Permits .025 Permit for Exporting a Raw Skin .068 Permit Conditions for Hunting Black Bear with Dogs .027 Permit for Exporting Big Game Trophies .070 Tier II Subsistence Hunting Permit Point System .028 Aviculture Permits .075 Lawful Methods of Taking Game .029 Permit for Possessing Live Game .080 Unlawful Methods of Taking Game; Exceptions .030 Possession of wolf hybrid prohibited .085 Unlawful Methods of Taking Big Game; Exceptions .031 Permit for Selling Skins and Trophies .090 Unlawful Methods of Taking Fur Animals .033 Permit for Sci., Ed., Propagative, or Public Safety Purposes .095 Unlawful Methods of Taking Furbearers; Exceptions .034 Permit to Take Game for Cultural Purposes .100 Unlawful Methods of Hunting Waterfowl, Snipe, Crane .039 Permit for Taking Wolves Using Aircraft .130 Restriction to Bag Limit .047 Permit for Using Radio Telemetry Equipment .135 Transfer of Possession .104 Authorization for Methods and Means Disability Exemptions .140 Unlawful Possession or Transportation of Game .106 Intensive Management of Identified Big Game Prey Populations .150 Evidence of Sex and Identity .110 Control of predation by wolves .160 Marked or Tagged Game .115 Control of predation by bears .260 Taking Cub Bears & Female Bears with Cubs Prohibited .165 Sealing of Bear Skins and Skulls .400 Emergency Taking of Game .170 Sealing of Marten, Lynx, Beaver, Otter, Wolf, and Wolverine .410 Taking Game in Defense of Life or Property .171 Sealing of Dall sheep horns .420 Taking nuisance wildlife .200 Purchase and Sale of Game .210 Game as Animal Food or Bait .220 Salvage of Game Meat, Furs, and Hides .230 Feeding of Game .250 Transfer of Muskoxen for Sci. and Ed. Purposes .450 Description of Game Management Units .990 Definitions

vii

viii

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME Revised March, 2007

MEMBER’S NAME AND ADDRESS TERM EXPIRES

Cliff Judkins, Chairman 3/1/2009 PO Box 874124 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Ted Spraker, Vice Chairman 3/1/2008 49230 Victoria Ave. Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Ben Grussendorf 3/1/2010 1221 Halibut Point Rd. Sitka, AK 99835 Richard Burley 3/1/2009 1165 Coppet Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Paul Johnson 3/1/2008 PO Box 329 Unalakleet, AK 99684 Bob Bell 3/1/2010 801 West Fireweed Lane Anchorage, AK 99503 Ron Somerville 3/1/2008 4506 Robbie Road Juneau, Alaska 99802

Alaska Board of Game members may also be reached at: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Boards Support Section P.O. Box 115526

Juneau, AK 99811-5526 PHONE: (907) 465-4110 FAX: (907) 465-6094

www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us

ix

Boards Support Section Alaska Department of Fish and Game

PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526

(907) 465-4110 (907) 465-6094 Fax

HEADQUARTERS Board of Fisheries Board of Game

Jim Marcotte, Exec. Director II 465-6095 Kristy Tibbles, Exec. Director I 465-6098 Shannon Stone, Pub. Tech. II 465-6097 Scott Crass, Pub. Specialist II 465-4046

Olivia Orsborn, Administrative Manager 465-6096 Tanya Ewing, Administrative Clerk III 465-4110

REGIONAL OFFICES Arctic Region Susan Bucknell PO Box 689 Kotzebue, AK 99752 Phone: (907) 442-1717 Fax: (907) 442-2420

Southeast Region Scott Crass PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Phone: (907) 465-4046 Fax: (907) 465-6094

Interior Region Rita St. Louis 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599 Phone: (907) 459-7263 Fax: (907) 459-8558

Southwest Region Joe Chythlook PO Box 1030 Dillingham, AK 99576 Phone: (907) 842-5142 Fax: (907) 842-5514

Southcentral Region Sherry Wright 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 Phone: (907) 267-2354 Fax: (907) 267-2489

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For updated information on the progress of an ongoing Board of Fisheries or Board of Game meeting, call: Juneau 465-8901; outside Juneau 1-800-764-8901 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Website address: http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/

x

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME

ARCTIC REGION PROPOSAL INDEX

BETHEL AREA - Units 18

1. Change trapping season dates and bag limit for muskrat 2. Create a spring black bear trapping season 3. Provide two caribou hunting seasons 4. Close nonresident season for caribou 5. Close nonresident season for caribou 6. Lengthen resident moose season in two portions of Unit 18 7. Revise the Amount Necessary for Subsistence determination for moose 8. Align wolverine hunt season with brown bear season 9. Prohibit lead shot for small game, fur animals, and furbearers 10. Prohibit use of aircraft for hunting in Unit 18

NOME AREA - Unit 22

11. Extend mink and weasel trapping dates 12. Eliminate brown bear sealing and tag requirements 13. Change the brown bear hunting season dates 14. Change the brown bear spring season hunting dates 15. Allow salvage of bears when taken in defense of life or property 16. Modify the hunt area description for Unit 22B 17. Open caribou hunt for residents in Unit 22B and 22D 18. Open moose season for residents in Unit 22A 19. Change the moose season and registration period for Unit 22A 20. Eliminate drawing requirement for nonresident moose hunt in Unit 22B 21. Modify the nonresident drawing system for moose in Unit 22B 22. Establish a bow hunt for moose in Unit 22C and 22D 23. Change the nonresident moose registration hunt to a general harvest hunt

in Unit 22D 24. Establish nonresident registration permit hunt for moose Unit 22E 25. Change the Amounts Necessary for Subsistence and season dates for moose 26. Eliminate musk ox tag requirements 27. Change the Amounts Necessary for Subsistence for musk ox 28. Increase number of musk ox drawing permits 29. Eliminate trophy destruction requirement for musk ox hunts 30. Provide an additional nonresident drawing hunt for musk ox in Unit 22E 31. Modify seasons and bag limits for musk ox in Unit 22E 32. Adjust trapping season and the hunting bag limit for wolf 33. Lengthen the hunting season for wolf in Unit 22D and 22E 34. Extend wolverine hunting season

Continued next page.

xi

KOTZEBUE AREA - Unit 23

35. Increase number of nonresident draw permits for brown bear 36. Housekeeping changes for brown bear hunting regulations 37. Modify the distribution of drawing permits for brown bear 38. Increase nonresident caribou bag limit 39. Increase nonresident caribou bag limit to two 40. Increase nonresident caribou bag limit 41. Increase nonresident caribou bag limit to two 42. Increase nonresident caribou bag limit to three 43. Increase nonresident caribou bag limit to four 44. Change nonresident caribou bag limit to two for Units 23 and 26A 45. Lengthen resident moose hunting season 46. Change the registration process for moose 47. Require nonresident moose hunters to be accompanied by a licensed, registered

guide or 2nd degree kindred family member 48. Provide nonresident drawing hunt for musk ox 49. Modify bag limit for Dall sheep 50. Change wolf hunting season dates for units 23 and 26A 51. Require guide client agreements for nonresident big game drawing hunts 52. Lengthen the closure dates for aircraft use in the Noatak Controlled Use Area

BARROW AREA - Unit 26A

53. Modify the moose hunt area and permit distribution 54. Open nonresident drawing hunt for moose 55. Modify the boundary of the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area 56. Modify the boundary of the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area 57. Modify the boundary of the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area

xii

ALASKA BOARD OF GAME Arctic and Western Regional Meeting

November 9 – 12, 2007 Yup’iit Piciryarait Cultural Center

Bethel, Alaska

TENTATIVE AGENDA

NOTE: This Tentative Agenda is subject to change throughout the course of the meeting. This Tentative Agenda is provided to give a general idea of the board’s anticipated schedule. The board will attempt to hold to this schedule; however, the board is not constrained by this Tentative Agenda. Persons wishing to testify must sign-up by the deadline. Public testimony will continue until those present at the meeting are heard; the board will continue working through its agenda immediately upon conclusion of public testimony. The following time blocks are only an estimate. Updated agendas will be posted in the meeting room, or call 1-800-764-8901, or 465-8901 in Juneau, for a recorded message on daily progression through the meeting. Friday November 9, 2007, 8:30 AM OPENING BUSINESS

Call to Order Purpose of Meeting Introductions of Board Members and Staff Board Member Ethics Disclosures

STAFF AND OTHER REPORTS PUBLIC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORAL TESTIMONY upon conclusion staff reports

DEADLINE FOR SIGN-UP TO TESTIFY will be announced at the meeting. Public testimony will continue until persons who have signed up before the deadline, and who

are present when called by the Chairman to testify, are heard. Saturday, November 10, 2007, 8:30 AM PUBLIC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORAL TESTIMONY BOARD DELIBERATIONS upon conclusion of oral public testimony

Sunday, November 11 2007, 9:00 AM BOARD DELIBERATIONS continued Monday, November 12, 2007, 8:30 AM BOARD DELIBERATIONS continued/concluded MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (including Petitions, Findings, Resolutions, Letters, & Other) ADJOURN SPECIAL NOTES A. This agenda is TENTATIVE and subject to change during the meeting. A list of staff reports and a roadmap will be available at the meeting. Scheduled updates will be available on the board’s recorded message phone. Phone Number: 1-800-764-8901; in Juneau call 465-8901. B. Advisory Committee representatives may present their reports either at the beginning or end of the “Oral Public Testimony.” The committee representative should notify the board staff whether they prefer to present their report at the beginning or end of public testimony. C. The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game complies with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Individuals with disabilities who may need auxiliary aids, services, and/or special modifications to participate in this hearing and public meeting should contact 465-4110 no later than October 19, 2007 to make any necessary arrangements.

xiii

Alaska Board of Game

GUIDELINES FOR

PUBLIC TESTIMONY &

ADVISORY COMMITTEE TESTIMONY

Persons planning to testify before Board of Game hearings must fill out a blue PUBLIC TESTIMONY SIGN-UP CARD and turn it in to the board’s staff. Persons providing written material for the board members must provide at least 20 copies to the staff; and submit with your blue testimony card. Do not wait until it is your turn to testify to submit written material, as it may not be distributed to the board in time for your testimony. Provide a name and date on the first page of written material and identify the source of graphs or tables, if included in materials.

When the chairman calls your name, please go to the microphone; state your name and whom you represent. At the front table, a green light will come on when you begin speaking. A yellow light will come on when you have one minute remaining. A red light will indicate that your time is up. When you are finished speaking, please stay seated and wait for any questions board members may have regarding your comments.

If you wish to give testimony for more than one group (i.e., yourself plus an organization, or advisory committee), you only need to turn in one sign-up card, listing each group you will be representing. When you begin your testimony, state for the record the group you are representing. Keep your comments separate for each group. For example: give comments for the first group you are representing, then after stating clearly that you are now testifying for the second group, give comments for that group.

Please be aware that when you testify you may not ask questions of board members or of department staff. This is your chance to make comments on proposals before the board. If board members and/or department staff need clarification, they will ask you questions. A person using derogatory or threatening language to the board will not be allowed to continue speaking.

Generally, the board allows five minutes for oral testimony, whether you testify for yourself or on behalf of an organization. The board chairman will announce the length of time for testimony at the beginning of the meeting.

Advisory Committee representatives are usually allowed 15 minutes to testify, and should restrict testimony to relating what occurred at the advisory committee meeting(s). Testimony should be a brief summary of the minutes of the meeting, and copies of the minutes should be available for the board members. An Advisory Committee representative’s personal opinions should not be addressed during Advisory Committee testimony.

PLEASE NOTE: The time limit on testimony does NOT include questions the board members may have for you.

1

Unit 18 – BETHEL AREA PROPOSAL 1 - 5 AAC 84.270. Furbearer trapping. Change the trapping season dates and bag limit for muskrat as follows: Unit 18: No closed season and no limit for muskrat; similar to the season and limit for beaver. ISSUE: Muskrat trapping season in Unit 18. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Not fully taking advantage of an abundant resource in Unit 18. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? More opportunity for muskrats to be harvested and nuisance animals trapped. It would also allow people to keep muskrats that are caught as by-catch during beaver trapping. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Residents of Unit 18. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Patrick Jones (HQ-07F-G-007) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 2 - 5 AAC 84.270. Furbearer Trapping and 92.085(6). Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Establish a trapping season for black bear in U nit 18 as follows. Three black bears may be taken every season; no more than two may be taken by trapping April 1 -May 31 in Units 18. ISSUE: Not maximizing the optimal sustained yield with black bear harvest in Unit 18. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department is not fulfilling its’ legal obligation. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, it provides a more realistic opportunity for black bear harvest. It also provides more options to target nuisances and potential nuisance bears. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All residents of Unit 18. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I also considered a fall trapping season and still consider this a possibility. PROPOSED BY: Patrick Jones (HQ-07F-G-004)

2

****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 3 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the caribou hunting season as follows: Provide two caribou seasons in Unit 18: August 1 - October 15 and February 1 - March 15. ISSUE: Caribou season for Unit 18. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Caribou herds have continuous hunting pressure throughout the season. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, winter harvested animals would be potentially less stressed from constant hunting/moving. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Residents of Unit 18. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? To adjust the current regulations to say any caribou instead of one bull. I rejected this idea because this is a long hunting season for a herd that appears to be crashing. PROPOSED BY: Patrick Jones (HQ-07F-G-006) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 4 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Close the nonresident caribou season as follows: Close the nonresident caribou season in Unit 18, initiate a Tier I hunt and develop a comprehensive and cooperative Mulchatna Caribou Herd rebuilding plan. ISSUE: The current Amount Necessary for Subsistence determinations are not being met; the caribou population is well below the management objective of 100,000-150,000 animals, the large bull composition consists of 9%, and the bull to cow ratio is 15:100 (management objective is 35:100). WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The subsistence hunter will not be able to meet their needs for caribou, the Mulchatna Caribou Herd will continue to decline due to the small composition of large breeder bulls, the bull to cow ratio will continue to decline, and we will not meet our population objective to keep the herd at sustainable populations. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The nonresident hunter is not interested in harvesting cows or small bull caribou. They primarily pursue the large breeding bulls which are important for the recovery of the herd. A small composition (9%) of large bulls in the herd exposed to additional harvest will only contribute further to the population decline of the herd. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All hunters as a result of a more sustainable herd.

3

WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Association of Village Council Presidents (HQ-07F-G-025) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 5 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Close the nonresident caribou hunting season. The Board of Game is requested to eliminate the nonresident hunting season that provides for the taking of caribou in Unit 18 until the Mulchatna Caribou Herd rebounds. ISSUE: Rural residents who rely on the Mulchatna Caribou Herd for subsistence uses have dire concerns about this declining caribou populations and the ability to fulfill their subsistence needs. The department has documented a 62% decline in caribou harvest that occurred between 1999 and 2004. The reported harvest during the 2005-2006 season for resident and nonresident hunters totaled 1,991 caribou. This harvest was below the state’s Amounts Necessary for Subsistence (ANS) of 2,100-2,400 caribou (5AAC 99.025), meeting the criteria of a Tier I situation. Current harvest data for the 2006-2007 regulatory year indicate that the harvest remains below the board’s ANS finding for caribou. Rural Alaskan residents must compete with other user groups during this period of substantive decline in Mulchatna caribou. Current state hunting regulations provide for nonresident hunting seasons in multiple units. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Because it is generally recognized that nonresident hunters primarily harvest large bulls from the herd, elimination of the nonresident caribou seasons within the Mulchatna Caribou Herd’s range is crucial for the conservation and continued benefit of this resource. A delay in the requested regulatory action could be detrimental to the Mulchatna Caribou Herd and the availability of Mulchatna caribou for subsistence users. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Retention of the large bull caribou, which are generally targeted by nonresident hunters, should facilitate herd growth. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The resource and resident hunters WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nonresident hunters OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Lester Wilde, Sr. (HQ-07F-G-043) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 6 - 5 AAC 85.045 (a)(16). Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Lengthen the resident moose season in two portions of Unit 18, as follows: Resident Nonresident Units and Bag Limits Open Season Open Season (16)

4

… Unit 18, that portion north and west of a line from Cape Romanzof to Kusilvak Mt. to Mountain Village and excluding all Yukon River drainages upriver from Mountain Village; however, portions of this area may be closed by emergency order to the taking of calves 1 antlered bull; or Aug 10 − Sept. 30 Sept. 1−Sept. 30 [SEPT. 1−SEPT. 30] 1 antlered bull or 1 calf Dec. 20 − Jan. 20 [DEC. 20 − JAN. 10] Remainder of Unit 18 1 antlered bull per regulatory Aug 10 − Sept. 30 Sept. 1−Sept. 30 year [SEPT. 1−SEPT. 30] Dec. 20−Jan. 10 ISSUE: This proposal changes both fall and winter resident moose season along the Yukon River and aligns state and federal seasons throughout Unit 18. The fall season (August 10-September 30) would be lengthened 21 days and winter season (December 20-January 20) would be lengthened 10 days. This longer opening provides an improved window of hunting opportunity that addresses local concerns regarding season length and weather conditions. The moose population is increasing in the two areas of Unit 18 that have proposed season extensions and these increasing moose populations can support the additional harvest associated with longer seasons. The August 10 season opening allows increased opportunity for harvest of moose by local subsistence users and aligns state and federal seasons in Unit 18. The winter season extension applies to an area of the Lower Yukon River that has a rapidly expanding moose population and also aligns state and federal seasons. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Game Management Unit 18 is a checkerboard of federal and state managed lands. The public will continue to be confused by different opening dates for the moose season. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No change in meat quality is expected if this proposal passes. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Hunters would benefit through a longer season; by being able to plan their hunt further in advance. Alignment of state and federal regulations would simplify the rules for hunters in the field. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

5

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leave it as it is. However, this leaves hunters dissatisfied with complicated regulations. PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-051) ***************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 7 - 5 AAC 99.025. Customary and traditional uses of game populations. Revise the Amount Necessary for Subsistence for moose in Unit 18. The Alaska Board of Game is requested to work with the department toward revising the existing Unit 18 Amount Necessary for Subsistence (ANS) for moose that is based upon the amounts needed for all the communities in Unit 18. ISSUE: The Alaska Board of Game has made an Amount Necessary for Subsistence finding, for Unit 18 moose of 80 to 100 moose for the entire Unit. The board based its 1992 finding on outdated and incomplete harvest data that do not represent the individual community harvest amounts that are currently taken by the local subsistence moose hunters of Unit 18. The ANS for moose harvested by Unit 18 residents is grossly underestimated and, as a result, inaccurately misrepresents the needs of the residents within the unit. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the ANS for Unit 18 moose is not revised to reflect the amount of moose needed by Unit 18 communities, then it is unlikely that reasonable opportunity can be evaluated and will not be provided through the state hunting regulations for the unit. Additionally, the Unit 18 moose population may not be able to provide for all subsistence uses. If the Unit 18 ANS finding for moose is not revised to reflect the moose harvest needed by each individual Unit 18 community, it will be difficult for the department to determine if “local and non-local” harvests of moose in Unit 18 are sustainable – especially during periods of declining and low moose populations and during periods of decline of other subsistence resources. Unit 18 hunters also hunt in the neighboring Units of 17, 19, and 21E. Even with some of the hunter effort distributed to other Units, hunting in some areas within Unit 18 is fairly competitive. Thus, the existing ANS cannot be used for sound conservation management when the harvestable supply and demand of Unit 18 moose must be evaluated. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The establishment of accurate, community-based ANS findings for Unit 18 communities will provide the department with the tools necessary to help manage the moose populations within the Unit and will lead to better informed regulatory decisions concerning changes made to seasons and harvest limits for moose in Unit 18. Accurate ANS findings for Unit 18 communities will also help the department to meet the management objectives for Unit 18 moose populations, by providing the state with a tool to evaluate whether reasonable opportunity has been provided. The information gathered to revise the ANS will provide additional insights including harvest use patterns, hunter distributions, and customary and traditional use determinations. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The users and the managers will benefit. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? PROPOSED BY: Lester Wilde, Sr. (HQ-07F-G-034)

6

****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 8 - 5 AAC 85.057. Hunting seasons and bag limits for wolverine. Modify the hunting season for wolverine as follows: Change the wolverine hunting season dates to September 1-May 31 for Unit 18 to be in alignment with the brown bear hunting season. ISSUE: The wolverine season should coincide with brown bear season, September 1-May 31 in Unit 18. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Less hunter opportunity. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Wolverines harvested in May are better than those in September. Also, hunters could combine spring bear hunts with wolverine hunts. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All hunters in Unit 18. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I considered May 15, but for simplicities reasons, it makes sense to have it coincide with brown bear season. PROPOSED BY: Patrick Jones (HQ-07F-G-005) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 9 - 5 AAC 92.080. Unlawful methods of taking game; exceptions; 5 AAC 92.090. Unlawful methods of taking fur animals; and 5 AAC 92.095. Unlawful methods of taking furbearers; exceptions. Prohibit the use of lead shot as follows: In Unit 18, use and possession of lead shot is prohibited for taking small game, unclassified game, and deleterious exotic wildlife (5 AAC 92.080); for taking fur animals under a hunting license (5 AAC 92.090); and taking fur bearers under a trapping license (5 AAC 92.095). ISSUE: Eliminate the deposition of lead shot by prohibiting the use and possession of lead shot for taking small game, unclassified game, deleterious exotic wildlife, fur animals, and fur bearers in Unit 18. Lead shot deposited by hunters poses a risk of sickness and death to wildlife, especially water birds that ingest it. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The use of lead shot for hunting small game and other animals will continue to deposit lead shot into habitats used by waterfowl and other wildlife in Unit 18. Lead shot presents a toxic hazard to wildlife, especially waterfowl, and persists in the environment for many years. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by stopping deposition of lead shot, wetland habitats of waterfowl habitats will have a chance to recover, and exposure of wildlife to toxic lead will be reduced. Lead shot is currently banned for hunting waterfowl, cranes, and snipe; prohibiting its use for hunting other animals will reduce sources of lead deposition in wetlands and other habitats.

7

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Waterfowl and other wildlife in Unit 18 will have cleaner habitats and lower risks of lead poisoning. Improved health of wildlife populations will benefit hunters in Unit 18 and elsewhere, as well as others who value wildlife. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some hunters who want to continue use of lead shot or who do not like steel shot may object to banning lead shot, but nontoxic steel shot is available and is an effective alternative. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Prohibiting lead shot for only some types of hunting would maintain a market for lead in local stores and allow continued deposition. PROPOSED BY: Native Village of Hooper Bay (HQ-07F-G-018) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 10 - 5 AAC 92.540. Controlled use areas. Establish a Controlled Use Area in Unit 18 as follows. All corporation lands within Unit 18 will be closed to fly-in hunters. All subsistence hunters will be allowed to harvest any small or big game animal, fish, migratory birds, or marine mammals on any corporation lands to meet their subsistence needs. Any interested parties may approach the corporations through a letter explaining how the interested party wants to exploit the land. The corporations will decide what will work best for themselves. In this section the subsistence hunter will be defined as any corporation member or their descendants and/or tribal members. After negotiations are completed, the guiding operation(s) will check into the nearest village to their hunting destination and be transported to the hunting site and back to the village by local skiff. After the hunt is completed, the guide and hunter must check in with the local tribe to verify that all laws are/were followed. This means that the tribe will check to verify that the horns are leaving with the required meat and bones. If the law was not followed than that hunter and guide will be subject to fines and/or jail time imposed by the state with up to ¾ of fine revenue going to the local corporation (this section of sharing fines will be negotiated between the State of Alaska and the local corporations), before leaving the village. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Animosity between any potential guiding service and the local people in Unit 18 will arise from lack of involvement between the parties. Headless moose carcasses will be found on local, tribal, traditional, hunting grounds and any non-subsistence hunter will be blamed. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Any guiding service that may want to do business in Unit 18 and the villages, tribes, and people who reside in Unit 18 will benefit the local economy. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Any guiding service who does not want to work with the people who reside in Unit 18 will lose the opportunity to make money in Unit 18. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Emmonak Tribal Council (HQ-07F-G-044) ******************************************************************************

8

Unit 22 – NOME AREA PROPOSAL 11 - 5 AAC 84.270. Furbearer trapping. Extend the trapping seasons for mink and weasel as follows: The new trapping regulation should extend mink and weasel seasons to April 15 in Unit 22. I suggest that separate regulations for mink and weasel become adopted so that mink and weasel seasons are delineated and separated in the regulations handbook. Mink and weasel are different species and combining them as they are combined in the regulations handbook does not seem to make sense. ISSUE: Mink and weasel trapping seasons that could be made longer so as to avoid the problem of trap size prohibitions when trapping otter when the mink and marten seasons are closed. There is also the problem of differing season length at the boundary of Unit 22. The differing season length at the boundary of Unit 22 could cause problems. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved there likely will be no big heartache. However, because in Unit 22 snares or traps with an inside jaw spread of at least 5 ⅞ inches is the only proscribed snare or trap that can be used on otter when mink and marten seasons are closed, there is a problem for the trapper. The closed mink season ending January 31 for Unit 22 may make problems for trapping otter or mink since the sets may be in the same location. A person intending to trap mink may legally use a trap such as #2 traps or smaller, and trap otter during the open mink season with good success. When the mink season becomes closed, the trapper is forced to use the legal size trap, abandon all mink and marten trapping, target otter but still catch mink. Weasel trapping adds good variety to trapping anywhere and is a key species that young persons may learn to trap first, since the weasel is not wary and the small traps that may be used for weasel are easy for youngsters to set. Weasel trapping combined with other trapping pursuits allows a person to set for weasel alongside their other traps. The board should uphold the youth opportunities for trapping, not limit them. Mink trapping in Unit 22 may never be a profitable venture because there are few mink or at least for the western portions of Unit 22. Mink are quite small animals and may likely be hidden from view for most of the winter. Their numbers may be higher than thought. I feel mink make roaming ventures after they have hunted out an area, and become more susceptible to trapping after January 31. A longer season reasonably extends opportunity for mink. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality of the resource harvested will increase because persons will be able to extend their trapping efforts for all furbearing animals while fur is still sellable. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Trappers. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who wish to see and enjoy diverse wildlife populations. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A

9

PROPOSED BY: Austin Ahmasuk (HQ-07F-G-021) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 12 - 5 AAC 92.012. Licenses and tags; 92.165. Sealing of bear skins and skulls; and 92.015. Brown bear tag fee exemptions. Eliminate tag, tag fees, and sealing requirements for brown bear. The new brown bear regulation should not require any tags, sealing, or fees for Unit 22; the new regulation should be as simple as obtaining a harvest ticket without registration. Tags are currently not required but sealing is. The Board of Game must each year adopt special regulations for Unit 22 to waive the tag fees for brown bear. The board could ease its work by permanently adopting bear regulations that do not require tags, sealing, or fees when hunters take brown bear in any portion of Unit 22 so that the hunt becomes as simple as picking up a harvest ticket without registration. ISSUE: Bear skin and skull sealing requirements. Requiring the skin and skull of bears to be sealed is a requirement that provides very minimal information such as size and confirmation of sex of the harvested bear - information that can easily be obtained without sealing the bear. We perceive that there is a problem with requiring this of Unit 22 subsistence users because bear are similar to moose as a subsistence resource, yet no sealing is required for moose. The brown bear sealing requirements for Unit 22 subsistence users serves to criminalize the taking of brown bear if the hide and skill are not sealed. The Board of Game should adopt regulations that do away with brown bear sealing requirements. In addition, tag fee requirements should be permanently waived for Unit 22 brown bear. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The sealing of the skin and skull of bears as required by the Board of Game for Unit 22 is needless and meaningless and only serves to criminalize subsistence hunters who fail to do so. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal does not address improving the quality of the resource. This proposal does address the nature of hunting and eliminating sealing requirements of subsistence hunters. For eons subsistence persons have carried out subsistence activities that did not require such things as seals or tags. It is in the recent times that things such as seals, tags and licenses have been required. Requiring seals or tags does not make more bears in the wild or even help in understanding what the harvest of bears is; much more effective management strategies can be employed to obtain bear harvest information such as a simple form that people already obtain to hunt bear. The brown bear population is not known in Unit 22 and has not been enumerated since 1990, yet subsistence hunters are required to seal bear skins and skulls as if sealing hides and skulls of bear, and leaving evidence of sex attached is so crucial for the conservation of bear. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Bear hunters will benefit by not having to obtain a meaningless seal that if lost and not placed on the bear at the time of sealing could mean citation. We believe enforcement will not exercise discretion when it comes to such things and subsistence hunters should not have to fear or face such criminalization. Sealing requirements are used to criminalize subsistence hunting. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Not sure who will suffer. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? No other solutions considered. Subsistence hunters should enjoy the simplest regulations possible.

10

PROPOSED BY: Kawerak, Incorporated (HQ-07F-G-010) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 13 - 5 AAC 85.020. Hunting seasons and bag limits for brown bear. Modify the season dates for brown bear as follows: Unit 22A grizzly bear season dates: August 1-June 15 for that portion south of and including the Golsovia River drainage, effective for the spring 2008 season. This would make all of Unit 22A the same. ISSUE: The season ending date of May 31st for that portion of Unit 22A, south of and including the Golsovia River drainage. For the last three years, this part of Unit 22A has been inaccessible by boat over 75% of the time between May 15-31. This has been from the wind blowing the pack ice into shore. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Hunters will not be able to hunt most of the area when it is ice bound. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal creates an opportunity that is realistic. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone who wants to hunt grizzly bear in this area; the local people who would like to get moose. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Virgil Umphenour (HQ-07F-G-033) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 14 - 5 AAC 85.020. Hunting seasons and bag limits for brown bear. Modify the brown bear season as follows: Unit 22C: One bear every four regulatory years with seasons dates as follows: Option 1: April 22 - May 6 (preferred) Option 2: April 16 - 30. This proposal is would apply to residents, non-residents, subsistence and rural Alaskan hunting. The only regulatory change proposed is the adjustment to the Unit 22C spring bear hunting season to the proposed dates above. ISSUE: Reoccurring obstacles such as increasingly poor snow accumulations and conditions as well as unseasonably warm temperatures has made it difficult to reach certain sections of Unit 22C in attempts to harvest a brown bear. Moving the season back would be less dangerous for both the bears and hunters and possibly eliminate some of the concerns. We all know hunting is not a walk in the park, however, moving the Unit 22C spring bear hunting season back would prevent such conditions. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The department has made great strides to improve the moose populations in Unit 22C. Moving the spring bear hunting season back in Unit

11

22C would ease the possibility of disruptions to the healthy moose population. Other considerations to view, people are building private cabins in Unit 22C and the cost of fuel has risen making it harder and quite expensive to hunt in a lot of sections on Unit 22C. Hunters will eventually resort to road hunting which we all know, for the most part, could be unsuccessful. Open river and snow bridges over ditches that are not seen in May due to increasing temperatures make it a serious hazard for hunters when crossing streams and valleys. Bears do hibernate closer to the ocean in Unit 22C. They come out of their den and eventually move into Unit 22D & B. The bears are not accessible due to snow conditions and the road is not open until late May when the season closes. It appears four wheelers are being purchased more than snow machines. That would be another consideration to view for our local business owners. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. If the board could move back the spring bear hunting season in Unit 22C to the above proposed dates, we could see a higher bear harvest in Unit 22C (but not guaranteed). Resident hunters who enjoy bear hunting could afford the hunt and would have more options to consider. Worries of snow fall accumulations and conditions, maintenance to machines, harms way, cabins destroyed, and other concerns that haven’t surfaced would ease. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Hunters are the ones who will benefit the most, not only getting a bear, but also saving moose in the current and surrounding subunits. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? I don’t think anyone would suffer. Most feel the same way. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I’ve spoken to department personnel about this topic and their comments were valid. Specific solutions were not discussed as the department was receptive to the above proposal. I’ve also spoken to several hunters and they support the idea. PROPOSED BY: Lance Michael Cannon (HQ-07F-G-026) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 15 - 5 AAC 92.410. Taking game in defense of life or property. Amend the regulation as follows: Revise the defense of life or property (DLP) regulations for Unit 22 so that when a bear is taken for DLP purposes, allow the hide and meat to be salvaged by the person who had to kill the bear in a defense of life or property situation. Kawerak proposes that the trophy value of the bear be destroyed and the skull be surrendered to the department. ISSUE: In some cases when a bear attacks or pursues persons or property, such as a bear entering a residence, a person may shoot the bear and have limited reasonable opportunities to ensure the bear is killed. The bear may die several or more miles away and it may become difficult to surrender the required items or even locate them. Kawerak prefers allowance of subsistence users to maximize use of harvested resources. Harvesting bear is a longstanding traditional activity that should not be restricted by laws or regulations that do not fit well with the subsistence lifestyle. Some type of minimal reporting and biological specimens should be collected. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved, people will be less apt to report Unit 22 defense of life or property emergency taking of bear.

12

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Kawerak believes this proposal does improve the quality of the resource being harvested by allowing subsistence users the opportunity to take the meat or hide of a DLP bear that otherwise would not benefit subsistence users. Many bears are killed and never reported; Kawerak believes this practice is widely known and reporting could be improved if our proposal is adopted. The current regulation is worded and enforced in such a way that is offensive to the subsistence lifestyle. A defense of life or property situation is one that can be very personal; the regulations should not state that a DLP bear is the property of the state. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Kawerak believes that people who spend a lot of time at camps in high bear areas will benefit from being able to utilize the resources of a DLP bear. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? N/A OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other solutions considered were no specimen collection. PROPOSED BY: Kawerak, Incorporated (HQ-07F-G-003) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 16 - 5 AAC 85.025(a)(17). Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Amend the hunt area description to accurately describe the hunt area adopted at the 2005 Board of Game meeting in Kotzebue, as follows: Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Units and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season (17) … Unit 22(B), that portion west of Golovnin Bay, and west of a line along the west bank of the Fish and Niukluk Rivers to the mouth of the Libby River, and excluding all portions of the Niukluk River drainage upstream from and including the Libby River drainage RESIDENT HUNTERS: 5 caribou per day Oct. 1-Apr.30 NONRESIDENT HUNTERS: 5 caribou Oct. 1-Apr.30 Remainder of Unit 22(B)

13

RESIDENT HUNTERS: 5 caribou per day; however, July 1-June 30 cow caribou may not be taken May 16-June 30 NONRESIDENT HUNTERS: 5 caribou; however, cow July 1-June 30 caribou may not be taken May 16-June 30 … ISSUE: At the 2005 Board of Game meeting in Kotzebue, caribou seasons and hunt areas in portions of Unit 22 were changed to help prevent the accidental harvest of reindeer in the area. The western portion of Unit 22(B) and the adjoining Pilgrim River drainage in Unit 22(D) were established as hunt areas with a short season (Oct. 1-Apr. 30) to help avoid the take of reindeer. We have discovered that the description of the intended hunt area in western Unit 22(B) is incorrect and does not accurately reflect the boundary adopted by the board in 2005. This proposal corrects the confusing part of the boundary description in western Unit 22(B), especially in the vicinity of the Libby River. No changes to seasons and bag limits are included in this proposal because the solution reached in November 2005 is doing a good job of offering caribou hunting in areas where reindeer are herded. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The codified language will not describe the area intended by the board or understood by the public. It could lead to unwarranted enforcement action. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Reindeer herders and hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-050) ***************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 17 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the caribou hunting season dates for residents as follows: Leave the caribou season open in Unit 22B and 22D as it was in the past. ISSUE: Closed caribou season for Alaska residents from May through September. It is the reindeer owners’ business to manage their reindeer, not the Board of Game. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Loss of hunting privilege for Alaskan residents.

14

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Caribou hunters in Alaska. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Kevin Bopp (HQ-07F-G-002) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 18 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Open the season for resident moose hunting in Unit 22A. “Unit 22A, that portion in the Unalakleet River drainage and all drainages flowing into Norton Sound north of the Golsovia River and south of the Tagoomenik and Shaktoolik river drainages - are open [NO OPEN SEASON] to the taking of moose.” ISSUE: Change the “no open season” to an open season as the moratorium has effectively increased the moose population in Unit 22A. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Reliance of food (moose) source for the residents of unit 22A has diminished with a moratorium. Expectation of caribou did not arrive in Unit 22A as in pervious years, thus making the food source lesser. An increase in moose population is noticed from aerial surveys. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? By sacrificing a no-hunt season for all residents for a period of time and letting the moose increase and placing a limited number of moose harvest per year, managed moose hunting would strengthen the moose population. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Residents of Alaska would initially benefit, however as we see the strength of the moose improve, then the non-residents would benefit. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nonresidents would not benefit at the very beginning. Common sense to preserve a species and giving it more time to renew itself would eventually benefit all. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Kathy Johnson, President, Native Village of Unalakleet (HQ-07F-G-013) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 19 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Modify the moose season and registration period as follows: In central Unit 22A, we propose that the registration period be July 15-August 15 and that the department be allowed to set a harvest guideline of “up to” twenty antlered moose depending on spring census data. Registration will take place in Unalakleet. We propose the season to be September 1-14 with an immediate closure upon reaching the harvest guideline. Using a rolling

15

average, any antlered moose harvested beyond the seasonal harvest guideline would count towards the following season’s harvest guideline, which would be set by the department after the following spring moose census. Reporting period will be 24 hours. Since there is a long gap in time between the current closure and the first possibility of a hunting season after the next census in 2008, this proposal allows a way to have a limited amount of fall harvest through a registration permit hunt if surveys or other information show the moose population is increasing and can support a limited harvest. We believe that future moose hunting in central Unit 22A by registration permit with a harvest quota and announced season is a good way to allow harvest of a small number of moose and is better than waiting until 2010 for a possible season after the next scheduled census in 2008. Reconsideration of moose harvest guidelines will take place in 2009 to plan for the 2010 season. ISSUE: In 2005, Unalakleet residents were very concerned about declining moose numbers in their area and poor moose hunting in recent years. At a meeting of the Southern Norton Sound Advisory Committee (SNSAC), department, staff, committee members, and Unalakleet residents discussed options for reducing hunting pressure and further protecting the declining moose population. The preferred option was a closure of the moose season in central Unit 22A that would sunset following the next scheduled moose census in 2008. This idea was proposed at the November 2005 board meeting in Kotzebue, and in response, the board adopted a regulation that closed the moose season in this area beginning in 2006-2007 regulatory year. If we follow the next moose census in 2008 with a proposal to the board, the meeting would occur in November 2009 and subsequent regulation changes would take effect in regulatory year 2010-2011 regulatory year (unless expedited or advance out of cycle). WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? No moose harvest for resident of central 22A. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Resident hunters and all secondary users of central 22A and other users in north and south 22A who will not be impacted by potential hunting in their sub-district. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Continued closure. PROPOSED BY: Southern Norton Sound Advisory Committee (HQ-07F-G-027) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 20 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Eliminate the nonresident drawing requirement for moose hunting as follows: Moose hunting in Unit 22B for nonresidents is November 1-December 31. No drawing requirement; harvest ticket only. ISSUE: Overturning the drawing requirement for moose hunting for nonresidents in Unit 22 B. (8 tags allotted and only 6 people applied)

16

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Further crowding in other units for guides and nonresident hunters. A lower quality hunt as more people will be frequenting units for moose hunting that do not require a tag. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Non-resident and subsistence hunters would benefit. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Providing additional tags for drawing. Rejected because only 6 people applied for 8 tags. Drawing not necessary. PROPOSED BY: Mike Vanning (HQ-07F-G-001) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 21 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose and 92.069. Units 21(D) and 24, Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, and Unit 23 moose drawing permits for nonresidents. Modify the moose drawing system as follows: Require successful applicants to provide a signed guide-client agreement to the department in Nome (within 30 days after drawing period) with a registered guide/outfitter that is authorized to provide moose hunts in Unit 22B by three or more land owners in Unit 22 at that time. ISSUE: The inadequacies of the current permit drawing system (DM845) for moose in Unit 22B (Seward Peninsula, east of Darby Mountains). WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Local guides will continue to be squeezed out by out-of-state guides who flood the permit application system with many times the permits available. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Very much so, by limiting the activities of out of state guides who have shown a history of over harvest and then move on. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local guide/outfitters and local sport, recreational, and subsistence hunters on the Seward Peninsula. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Out-of-state guides/outfitters that have no connection to the region. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Bob Hannon (HQ-07F-G-035) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 22 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Establish a bow hunt season for moose follows:

17

The new regulation will establish a hunt by emergency order and hunter registration so that the moose quota can be reached in the fall, only if the moose quota in Unit 22C and Unit 22D (Nome road system) is not reached. The new regulation should establish a restricted weapons hunt (bow only) if the quota is not achieved during the September 1-14 season. I propose October 1-10 be the season of the restricted weapons hunt. ISSUE: The lack of a management tool to ensure that moose quotas are reached. The problem of unattained moose quotas in Unit 22 is rare, but if that were to occur, ADF&G has no recourse to expand the season other than in the winter, and the stronger possibility exists for over harvest since winter hunting is not restricted by any means. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved, the department will continue to manage moose in Unit 22C and 22D under a quota and season restriction that may result in un-harvested moose if the quota is not achieved during the September 1-14 season. I propose October 1-10 be the season of the restricted weapons hunt. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal does improve the quality of the resource being harvested. The use of bows in Unit 22 is limited but is not just for trophy hunting purposes. Establishing a bow only hunt by emergency order and registration after the regular season has ended allows hunters to take moose after all hunters are given a chance to legally do so by restricted means. After moose are given a chance to settle after the regular season and establish breeding behaviors an excellent opportunity exists for hunters to take moose if the quota is not reached. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who may not register. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other solutions that I have considered are increasing the moose quota and season to allow for a special restricted weapons hunt after the regular season. I rejected that idea because it does not seem fair to allow for a special class of hunters to be given a special season when moose hunting is already fairly competitive in Unit 22. However, allowing for moose hunting to occur to achieve a quota if hunters were not able to do so seems reasonable if the number of moose remaining to achieve the quota is small and hunters are restricted in their means to do so. PROPOSED BY: Austin Ahmasuk (HQ-07F-G-032) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 23 - 5 AAC 85.045 Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Change the nonresident registration hunt to a general harvest hunt for as follows: Unit 22D remainder, nonresident season: 1 bull, 50” or 4 brow tines on one side, September 1-September 14. ISSUE: The registration hunt (RM842) was implemented several years ago. Unit 22D remainder has a resident moose season which lasts from August 10 to January 31 and includes bull and cow moose seasons. There never was a biological reason to initiate this particular hunt for nonresidents. It was originally proposed by an individual who has no local knowledge of the subunit or the moose resources and hunting pressures associated with the area. The argument that Unit 22D

18

remainder would see an increased hunting pressure from the Nome road system hunters has proven erroneous. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued degradation of moose hunting opportunity for nonresident hunters and the continued loss of benefits from their activities to the local service providers, and the continued loss of the fall harvested meat provided to local elder residents of the surrounding villages. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The proposal would eliminate the possibility of having a hunt terminated in the middle of the hunt. Nonresidents have a considerable investment in a moose hunt, including purchasing $400 moose tags and $85 hunting licenses. The quality of the hunt is diminished with the constant threat of an emergency order closure. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Nonresident hunters, and the numerous local individuals and businesses that benefit both economically and from the provision of thousands of pounds of quality fall harvested fat meat from their hunting activities. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. There never was a conflict in Unit 22D between nonresident and resident moose hunters. There has been a concern that there would be an influx of Nome road system hunters into the Unit. The remoteness and costs associated with accessing the Unit preclude the threat of a large influx of outside hunters from the Nome road system. The moose population in 22D remainder does not seasonally migrate east and west. Hunting of 22D remainder moose does not affect the resource along the Nome road system. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? There is no other solution to this issue than to remove a useless political impediment to the orderly use of the moose resource for the maximum benefit of the local area. PROPOSED BY: Brian Simpson (HQ-07F-G-017) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 24 - 5 AAC 85.045(a)(20). Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Establish a nonresident registration permit hunt for large bull moose in Unit 22E, as follows: Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Units and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season (20) … Unit 22(E) RESIDENT HUNTERS: 1 bull Aug. 1 – Mar. 15 NONRESIDENT HUNTERS:

19

1 bull with 50-inch antlers Sept. 1 – Sept. 14 or antlers with 4 or more [NO OPEN SEASON.] brow tines on one side, by registration permit only … ISSUE: During the 2001 Board of Game meeting, the resident moose season was shortened three months and the nonresident moose hunting season was closed in Unit 22E in response to concerns by local residents and department staff that moose numbers were declining in the area. A spring riparian moose survey completed in 2001 found 169 moose and yielded 8 calves:100 adults and 7% calves. The moose population in Unit 22E has since responded to the period of restricted harvest and a stratified moose census completed in 2003 found 504 moose (± 9.5% at 90% CI). The calf:adult ratio was 23 calves:100 adults and the recruitment rate was 16%. In 2006 the department revisited the area and found 587 moose (± 18.2% at 90% C.I). The calf:adult ratio was 22 calves:100 adults and the recruitment rate was 18%. The department believes a limited large bull harvest (up to 20) is reasonable and we recommend establishing a nonresident registration hunt with a harvest quota that mirrors the nonresident registration hunt in Remainder of Unit 22D, which is the adjoining hunt area to the south. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The loss of opportunity for increased hunting. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Moose hunters on the Seward Peninsula are generally opportunistic and harvest the moose available to them. An increased number of nonresidents will be able to hunt large moose from an area previously closed. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Nonresident hunters and the commercial services industry present in Unit 22(E). Additionally, residents of Unit 22(E) may benefit if they choose to provide services to permittees and/or charge fees to access private lands. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Maintain the status quo. PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-052) ***************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 25 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose, 92.062(c). Priority for subsistence hunting; Tier II permits; and 99.025. Customary and traditional uses of game populations. Amend the Amounts Necessary for Subsistence and the seasons and bag limits for moose in Unit 22 as follows: The new regulation will establish new amounts necessary for subsistence for moose in Unit 22 and from that will find that establishing Tier II hunting regulations in portions of Unit 22 is necessary. The board should establish seasons commensurate with adequate opportunity allowing subsistence hunters to better decide when to hunt moose.

20

Unit 22B West - Amount Necessary for Subsistence of 80: An ANS of 80 moose for Unit 22B fits well with the historic hunting opportunities in Unit 22B before moose declined. The geometric average moose harvest in Unit 22B since 1983 is approximately 80 with a modal value of approximately 67; those numbers are obviously much higher than the current quotas allowed by regulation. White Mountain and Golovin residents should receive a separate ANS for moose throughout all the western portion of Unit 22B so that their subsistence needs may be met. The board should establish an ANS for White Mountain and Golovin that is commensurate with their historic hunting opportunities. Unit 22C - Amount Necessary for Subsistence of 70: An ANS of 70 for moose in Unit 22C is commensurate with historic and modern hunting levels and fits well the opportunities many Nome hunters are used to. However, I believe the 50 moose quota did not adequately address the subsistence need in Unit 22C. The quota seemed to be based upon the department’s desire to easily manage moose harvests in Unit 22 and did not take into account all those who obtained permits but did not get moose. The board must consider the long standing history of the hunt. The board set a quota of 50 bull moose for Unit 22C and issues up 20 antlerless permits. The current 50 bull moose quota and up to 20 antlerless permits is commensurate with historic hunting opportunity but has artificially put a ceiling on possible sustainable yields that could be realized if hunting opportunity were not restricted by quotas. The geometric average moose harvest since 1983 is approximately 34 with a standard error of approximately 3, which reflects tight contrast of moose harvests. When persons obtain an antlerless permit they may also harvest a bull. Despite people camping out the morning before antlerless permits are issued, the department inevitably refers through the waiting list and hands out permits to those on the waiting list, since as I stated persons may also harvest a bull. That goes to show the importance of moose hunting in Unit 22C and goes to show the subsistence need for moose in Unit 22C is higher than 70. Unit 22D - Amount Necessary for Subsistence of 110: An ANS of 110 moose for Unit 22D fits well with the historic hunting opportunities in Unit 22D before moose declined. Brevig Mission and Teller residents should receive a separate ANS for Unit 22D SW and Unit 22D remainder so that their subsistence needs may be met. The geometric average moose harvest for Unit 22D since 1983 is approximately 113 with a standard error of approximately 10. The board should establish an ANS for Brevig Mission and Teller that is commensurate with their historic hunting opportunities so that their subsistence needs may be met. Unit 22A, Unit 22B Remainder, & Unit 22E: An ANS should be established for each sub-unit based upon historic hunting opportunities and history. Establishing an ANS for Unit 22A, 22B remainder, and 22E will not be difficult since adequate information is available from subsistence harvest surveys. I am reluctant to propose any ANS number for those units since they are outside of the Nome area. The new regulation should also limit permits to one moose per household by ensuring that households with the same physical address can not apply. The new regulation should also allow the Advisory Committees to approve moose Tier II recipients to put in a checks and balance system to eliminate persons who might falsify information in order to obtain a Tier II moose permit. The Tier II application for the Unit 22 Tier II hunt should include the physical address so that the Tier II scoring computer will be able to select persons with that unique address only. A person may have the same post office box but different physical address. A different physical address obviously means a different household. The new Unit 22 Tier II moose season should be September 1-20 of each year.

21

ISSUE: Declining moose populations and increasing competition for moose in Unit 22, especially near Nome. I believe the board needs to refine the amounts necessary for subsistence. Potential hunters and actual permit recipients (successful and unsuccessful hunters) in Unit 22 and statewide, outnumber the available harvestable surplus for moose. This scenario requires the board to address Amounts Necessary for Subsistence. The population of Nome has increased dramatically with increased hunting competition; the board must take action. The current moose ANS is not adequate, moose harvest quotas for Unit 22 have been artificially fabricated from the diminutive time period of the recent moose decline and purposefully excluded the years when moose populations were higher, and moose harvest was higher. I believe the Unit 22 moose hunt is already in a Tier II situation and the local department office has contributed to the lack of attention to the situation by presenting information to the board with lower than acceptable statistical confidence i.e. 90% or lower. The current moose harvest quotas are grossly inadequate in accordance with Alaska Statute 16.05.258, and requires the board to act accordingly. Unit 22 moose hunters deserve the recognition of our long standing and customary moose hunt history when moose re-colonized the westward portions of the Seward Peninsula. In my opinion the moose habitat is better than it ever was but for some reason moose populations still are depressed, this could be related to predators and hunting. I believe that the board does not have all the information available in a sufficient manner, i.e. browse surveys and moose numbers, to adequately make the decisions it has. The board should require better information and should strongly criticize population information presented that is not at 95% confidence. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will continue to manage moose in Unit 22B, 22C, and 22D under a Tier I plus scenario which allows nonresidents. The population of Nome is continuing to grow and long time Nome moose hunters are becoming displaced; I believe the amounts necessary for subsistence for moose in Unit 22 as proposed by the Northern Norton Sound Advisory Committee and enacted by the board do not reflect modern subsistence need of all Alaskans. I believe the Northern Norton Sound Advisory Committee proposed the ANS as it is now enacted so as to avoid Tier II and did not adequately address amounts necessary for subsistence for moose. Unless the board takes active measures to manage subsistence moose hunting, customary and direct dependence as protected by AS 16.05.258 will be harmed. The board must address amounts necessary for subsistence, it must take the matter very seriously, it must establish amounts necessary for subsistence based upon reasonable and credible information, and it must take into account long standing subsistence harvest information. I feel that it is better to give permits to persons with the longer history of customary and direct dependence. The board must address the amounts necessary for subsistence for moose and establish them commensurate with the ever growing people population in Unit 22. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The quality of the resource harvested should be improved and the board must address improving it because, as it is now, subsistence hunters compete greedily for moose and some families harvest two moose per household. In this time of declining moose numbers it is not right for a family to harvest more than one moose per household. The only reason there is not a Tier II moose regulation now is because the Northern Norton Sound Advisory Committee has artificially and ambiguously proposed amounts necessary for subsistence for moose in Unit 22 low so as to avoid Tier II. The manner in which the board has established amounts necessary for subsistence for moose likely violated AS 16.05.258. The manner in which the board

22

has adopted closures and restrictions for moose without also adopting intensive management measures is very precarious and that point was made in November 2005. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Long-time Nome residents who have hunted moose ever since they became readily available. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? New Nome residents who have no long-established moose hunting histories in Unit 22. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Other solutions that I have considered are selective moose harvest regimes, predator control, assessing whether or not predators are regulating or limiting factors of the moose population, and further restrictions to moose hunting. All of those ideas were considered and all but understanding the role of predators were rejected. Any idea for moose in Unit 22 requires additional funding to better understand the moose population, moose reproduction, and moose mortality. As it is now, department publishes information that is of relatively poor quality because of funding levels. PROPOSED BY: Austin Ahmasuk (HQ-07F-G-020) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 26 - 5 AAC 92.012. Licenses and tags. Eliminate the tag requirement for musk ox as follows: The regulation should not require locking tag requirements for musk ox hunting in Unit 22, as they are not necessary for biological information. Much like moose harvest, musk ox harvest should be reported using standard report forms. ISSUE: Needless tag requirements for musk ox hunting. A person is required to affix a locking tag to the musk ox when transporting musk ox from the field. The tag does not provide any biological information. Tagging requirements for transport of musk ox is an outdated, unnecessary requirement. They only serve to criminalize a person who does not affix the tag. If it is lost, the department has no mechanism to replace a lost tag, even though the person is a successful Tier II musk ox hunter and has gone through the lengthy Tier II process. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Persons are required to follow unnecessary and immaterial Tier II permit requirements. The Tier II musk ox hunt is for subsistence purposes and subsistence hunters should not be required to affix the locking tag when transporting meat from the field. The actual paper permit is much easier to keep on your person and should be the only thing needed to ensure that musk ox hunters are complying with permit requirements. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? I don’t believe this proposal addresses improving the quality of the resource. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Tier II subsistence hunters by making musk ox hunting requirements less cumbersome and bureaucratic. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? N/A OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A

23

PROPOSED BY: Kawerak, Incorporated (HQ-07F-G-009) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 27 - 5 AAC 99.025(9). Customary and traditional uses of game populations. Amend the Amount Necessary for Subsistence for musk ox as follows: For the Seward Peninsula musk ox population (Unit 22 and Unit 23, that portion west of and including the Buckland River drainage) the Amount Reasonably Necessary for Subsistence (ANS) should be 200-250 musk oxen. The nested determination for sub-unit 22E (40 to 52 musk oxen) would be lowered slightly (40 to 50 musk oxen), and the Tier I registration and drawing hunts in 22E would continue. ISSUE: In 1995, the board determined that 100 musk ox were necessary for subsistence uses of the Seward Peninsula musk ox population. The determination was based on the reported needs of six communities in the hunt area (Teller, Brevig Mission, Shishmaref, Wales, Deering, and Buckland). Since 1998, the Seward Peninsula musk ox population has grown and the hunt area has expanded to include subunit 22B and subunit 22C. An average of 247 people and 198 households have been applying for the subsistence hunt each year, including hunters from White Mountain, Elim, Golovin, Koyuk, Nome, and other areas of the state. With approximately 250 people applying for 100 musk ox each year, it seems that the 1998 Amount Reasonably Necessary for Subsistence determination is too low. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The harvestable surplus of this population now exceeds the amount necessary for subsistence, indicating that subsistence hunting should be managed out of Tier II. However, the high number of applicants for Seward Peninsula Tier II musk ox hunts indicates the ANS should be reevaluated. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Alaska residents who use Seward Peninsula musk ox for subsistence. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Alaska residents and nonresidents who use musk ox for nonsubsistence purposes. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Summary of recommendations from the November 15-16, 2006 Seward Peninsula Musk ox Cooperators meeting. PROPOSED BY: Seward Peninsula Musk Ox Cooperators Group (HQ-07F-G-028) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 28 - 5 AAC 85.050 (a) (2). Hunting seasons and bag limits for musk oxen. Increase the number of drawing permits in Unit 22E from “up to 20” to “up to 30”, as follows: Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Units and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season (2)

24

… Unit 22(E) 1 musk ox per Aug. 1 – Mar. 15 No open season regulatory year by (Subsistence hunt registration permit only; or only) 1 bull 4-year-old or older Aug. 1 – Mar. 15 Aug. 1 – Mar. 15 by drawing permit only; up to 30 [20] permits may be issued; up to 10 percent of the permits may be issued to nonresident hunters … ISSUE: Current regulation authorizes the department to issue “up to 20” musk oxen drawing permits in Unit 22E. During the 2007-2008 hunting season, the department issued the allowable 20 drawing permits in combination with a Tier I registration hunt. There is no flexibility to issue more drawing permits if the musk ox population continues to increase. The musk ox population in Unit 22E grew 15% annually from 2000 to 2005, increasing from 461 to 863 animals. It has since stabilized and increased 5% between 2005 and 2007, when the population increased from 863 to 949 animals. Increasing the number of drawing permits allows the department to continue to manage the mature bull musk ox hunt in response to population increases, approved harvest rates, and the portion of harvestable surplus recommended for the drawing hunt. An increased number of drawing permits in regulation would allow the department to issue additional permits to compensate for herd growth and hunter success rates. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The potential loss of hunting opportunity for large male musk oxen that would not otherwise be taken. Unit 22E residents will continue to be frustrated by our lack of responsiveness to their concerns about increasing numbers of musk oxen. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Subsistence hunters will have improved quality of harvest by choosing young bulls and cows when they are hunting. An increased number of drawing permit hunters will be able to select larger and older bull musk oxen. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Residents of Unit 22E who want to hunt more musk oxen for subsistence and other residents of Alaska who want the opportunity to hunt for musk oxen on the Seward Peninsula. Additionally, residents of Unit 22E may benefit if they choose to provide services to drawing permittees and/or charge fees to access private lands. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Maintain the status quo, increase the number of Tier II subsistence permits, or liberalize hunt conditions in the Tier I subsistence hunt.

25

PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-054) ***************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 29 - 5 AAC 92.052(5). Discretionary permit hunt conditions and procedures. Eliminate the trophy destruction requirement for musk ox as follows: Remove the trophy destruction requirement for Tier II and registration musk ox hunts in Unit 22. ISSUE: Tier II and registration permit holders are required to destroy the trophy value of musk ox horns removed from the Unit. This is a loss of potentially sale-ability of these horns and reduces the opportunity for subsistence hunters to gain from their kill in an otherwise legal manner. This trophy destruction is not required of the federal permit holders in Unit 22. This makes for a complicated enforcement process. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Tier II and registration permit holders will continue to be required to destroy the trophy value of musk ox horns removed from the Unit. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. It improves the quality of legally saleable musk ox horns. It opens new markets for legal Tier II and registration hunters if they should wish to sell their horns. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All Tier II and registration permit hunters who successfully hunt in Unit 22. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? There would be a small potential for increase in non-local hunters seeking a registration permit, thereby causing a slight increase in competition for animals. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Mike H. Quinn (HQ-07F-G-011) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 30 - 5 AAC 85.050. Hunting season and bag limits for musk oxen. Provide an additional drawing hunt for nonresidents in Unit 22E as follows: Authorize an additional drawing hunt that is for nonresidents only in Unit 22E. After the quota of permits for Unit 22E is set by the department for the next regulatory year under the existing “up to” regulations, 10% of the bull harvest quota shall be issued through the new permit hunt, which will be open only to nonresident applicants. The existing drawing hunt (DX097) would continue to receive 90% of the bull harvest quota and be open to resident applicants only. ISSUE: There is currently one hunt for musk ox in Unit 22E which is open to both residents and nonresidents, DX097. The exact quota of permits to be issued each year is set by the department and the regulation reads that “up to 10%” of the overall harvest quota set by the hunt manager within DX097 shall be issued to nonresidents. Therefore, if there are ten permits issued, one would be issued to a nonresident, if there are twenty permits, two to non-residents, etcetera. The problem is the wording of this regulation of “up to 10%”. Residents are guaranteed 90% of the permits at a minimum; nonresidents may or may not receive 10% of the allocation because there is no guarantee that 10% of the permits shall be issued to nonresidents.

26

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresidents will continue to lose hunting opportunity from the minimal allocation already approved by the board due to the manner in which the regulation is worded and administered. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The problem to be addressed by this proposal does not affect the quality of the resource itself. Rather, the proposal seeks to insure that the full 10% nonresident allocation is reserved to nonresidents in the most expedient manner possible for the department to administer, both at the Nome area office level and the statewide drawing permit office in Anchorage. The intent of this proposal is specific as to not diminishing or changing the overall quota of bulls to be harvested (annually set by the hunt manager), rather insuring that the final 90/10% resident/non-resident allocation of the annual quota set by the manager is assured. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone. The allocation split has already been set by the board; this proposal would clarify and insure that the 90/10% resident/non-resident allocation actually occurs. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? The verbiage of “up to 10%” of the annual allocation for nonresident applicants in the current DX097 permit hunt could be changed to “10% shall be issued” of the annual allocation to nonresident applicants and continue to administer only on drawing hunt DX097. The reason this solution was rejected as the primary proposal is that having two separate drawing hunts, one for residents only (DX097) and creating a new drawing hunt for nonresidents only would be much easier for the department to administer. If there are any errors in the applicant pool for a mixed drawing hunt there is a lot more administrative effort and time involved to correct a problem, rather than having two separate pools of applicants and drawing the correct number from each to be awarded for the regulatory year’s harvest quota. This proposal requests that in the event it is preferable for the board to maintain one hunt (DX 097), that the board would then amend the existing regulatory language to insure that 10% of the overall issued permits are in fact issued to nonresidents. The third solution under this proposal would be for the board to limit any change in regulation except to increase the “up to” percentage verbiage from 10% to 30% for the nonresident allocation. This is the least preferred solution. PROPOSED BY: Brian Simpson (HQ-07F-G-023) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 31 - 5 AAC 85.050. Hunting seasons and bag limits for musk oxen Modify the season and bag limit in Unit 22E as follows: For Unit 22E resident, nonresident, and nonresident aliens:

1.) Create a registration permit hunt for broomed bulls only, with an individual bag limit of one broomed bull per regulatory year. 2.) The hunt would be open to all resident, nonresident, and nonresident alien hunters. 3.) The season dates would be August 1 - May 31. 4.) The total hunt harvest limit is proposed at ten broomed bulls (total of broomed bulls to be harvested per regulatory year). If the department objects to this and has a better number, this is acceptable, or the hunt would close upon order to the hunt manager before the season date of May 31, if so determined necessary by the hunt manager.

27

ISSUE: There are currently two hunts for musk ox in Unit 22E, RX104 and DX097. The RX104 registration hunt is open to all state residents and the DX097 drawing permit hunt is a trophy hunt limited to four year old (or older) bulls. There are currently numerous broomed bulls in Unit 22E which are not harvested under the registration and drawing permits. Hunters seeking trophies with drawing permits demand both horn tips intact and hunters who hunt for the meat generally seek younger bulls or females. A resident hunter could harvest a broomed bull under the registration hunt regulations, but the horn tips must be cut to destroy the trophy value before removal from Unit 22. This proposal seeks to increase the harvest of broomed bulls, which are not currently utilized, and increase the hunting opportunity without negatively impacting the overall health of the musk ox resource. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Broomed musk ox bulls will continue to be under utilized and potential hunting opportunity will continue to be denied. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Broomed bulls are rarely harvested and this proposal would increase hunting opportunity without any negative effects to the general musk ox population. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Anyone who does not reside in Unit 22 and wishes to have an opportunity to hunt musk ox. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? There is no conflict with any other users of the resource. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? A) A drawing permit hunt with the same conditions is request if a registration hunt is not acceptable to the Board of Game. B) Another solution would have been to amend the RX104 regulation to waive the horn tip destruction provision for broomed bulls only which are removed from Unit 22. While a waiver might be simple to administer, the RX104 hunt does not have provisions for nonresident and nonresident alien participation. There is no reason not to increase hunting opportunity for as many hunters as possible, as there is no conflict with existing users of the resource. The season dates under this proposal are longer (through May 31) than the RX104 and DX097 hunts, which would further complicate amending these hunts. The reason cited for closing the RX104 and DX097 hunts on March 15 has been that hunting musk ox during the calving season is potentially harmful to the herds. This proposal is limited to broomed bulls which are generally alone or in small groups of bachelor bulls, thus eliminating the argument for closing a broomed bull only season by March 15. It would be preferable to leave the RX 104 hunt as is and to simple add another hunt with specific parameters as proposed. PROPOSED BY: Brian Simpson (HQ-07F-G-014) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 32 - 5 AAC 85.056. Hunting seasons and bag limits for wolf and 84.270. Furbearer trapping. Adjust wolf trapping season and change the hunting bag limit as follows: The new regulation should allow for an unlimited bag limit for wolf during the hunting season in Unit 22. It should also open the trapping season earlier to October 1, when wolf pelts have just come into prime or have nearly reached prime conditions.

28

ISSUE: The increasing population of wolves on the Seward Peninsula is impacting populations of privately owned livestock (reindeer) and subsistence resources (moose and caribou). Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association would like the Board of Game to revise the wolf hunting bag limit for Unit 22; revised to a “no limit” and also suggest the wolf trapping season is opened earlier. Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association prefers allowance of subsistence users, hunters, and trappers to maximize use of harvested resources particularly predators. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If this problem is not solved, subsistence users, hunters, and reindeer herders will not be able to hunt wolf when conditions are favorable and pelts are prime. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, the prime conditions are in the late fall and winter. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence hunters and reindeer herders will have access to wolves when travel conditions are safer. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association (HQ-07F-G-008) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 33 - 5 AAC 85.056. Hunting seasons and bag limits for wolf. Modify the resident and nonresident season dates follows: Unit 22D and 22E, resident and nonresident season: 5 wolves; August 1 (AUGUST 10) - May 31 (APRIL 30). ISSUE: The hunting season for wolf opens August 10 and closes April 30. Unit 22 is a very large unit and the western subunits of 22D and 22E have much later springs than the eastern subunits. Most hunters harvest wolves when hunting for other species. The wolf season should be set to coordinate as closely as possible with the seasons of other big game animals to provide the most hunting opportunity as possible. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of hunting opportunity for most hunters. Wolf numbers are increasing due to the influx of caribou herds. The caribou have destroyed most of the reindeer herds and they have brought numerous wolves with them. The moose population has suffered for years from bear predation and an increased wolf predation should be minimized by all non-controversial means possible. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The proposal would create additional hunting opportunity for hunters in the field. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Hunters who are in the field hunting for other species and cannot harvest wolves before August 10 and after April 30. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

29

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? It is preferable to change the wolf season in the entire unit. PROPOSED BY: Brian Simpson (HQ-07F-G-016) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 34 - 5 AAC 85.057. Hunting seasons and bag limits for wolverine. Modify the resident and nonresident season dates as follows: Unit 22D and 22E resident and nonresident season: 1 wolverine; September 1 - April 30 (MARCH 31) ISSUE: The hunting season for wolverine opens September 1 and closes March 31. Unit 22 is a very large unit and the western subunits of 22D and 22E have much later springs than the eastern subunits. Most hunters harvest wolverines when hunting for other species. The wolverine season should be set to coordinate as closely as possible with the seasons of other big game animals to provide the most hunting opportunity as possible. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of hunting opportunity for most hunters. The moose population has suffered from bear predation and an increased wolf predation in recent years. Any non-controversial means to protect moose calves and increasing the moose population should be implemented. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? The proposal would create additional hunting opportunity for hunters in the field, and reduce moose calf predation. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Hunters who are in the field hunting for other species and cannot harvest wolverines after March 31 and the general moose population. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Opening the wolverine season to August 1, rejected due to lack of hide quality. PROPOSED BY: Brian Simpson (HQ-07F-G-015) ******************************************************************************

30

Unit 23 – KOTZEBUE AREA

PROPOSAL 35 - 5 AAC 85.020 (a)(21). Hunting seasons and bag limits for brown bear. This proposal would increase the number of nonresident brown bear drawing permits in Unit 23 from 58 to 68 permits per year. These permits would be allocated on the basis of Guide Use Areas: Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Units and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season (21) Unit 23 RESIDENT HUNTERS: 1 bear every regulatory year Aug. 1-May 31 by registration permit (Subsistence hunt only) 1 bear every regulatory year Aug. 1-May 31 NONRESIDENT HUNTERS: 1 bear every regulatory year Sept. 1-Oct. 10 by drawing permit only; Apr. 15-May 31 up to [58] 68 permits may be issued … ISSUE: This proposal increases the number of nonresident brown bear drawing permits and proposes to allocate permits on the basis of seven Guide Use Areas (GUA), the same method used for nonresident moose drawing permits in Unit 23. Distributing available brown bear permits and hunting effort by GUAs will prevent further concentration of brown bear harvests in high-use areas. Historical brown bear harvest levels by nonresidents would be used to determine the number of permits in each GUA. We anticipate allocating permits on the basis of GUAs would cap or slightly reduce harvests in high-use GUAs and may increase harvests in low-use GUAs. The 10 additional permits requested in this proposal would be allocated to low-use GUAs where past nonresident brown bear harvests have been low. Since 1992, brown bear regulations in Unit 23 have been incrementally liberalized in response to high numbers of bears reported by the public and requests for increased opportunity from hunters (residents, nonresidents, and guides). Nonresident drawing permit hunts were first established in 1980-1981 and for fifteen years there were 25 nonresident permits available annually. Beginning in 1997-1998, the number of nonresident permits has been increased several times; 58 permits are now available each year (34 during the fall and 24 during the spring). Harvest data (e.g. sex ratio of harvested bears, average skull size of males or females,

31

and average age of males or females) indicate that harvests within Unit 23 are currently sustainable and not adversely affecting population structure. Adding 10 permits to this hunt is not expected to impact the population. Throughout all years, brown bear harvests have not been distributed equally throughout the unit. Instead, the middle and lower Noatak drainage has sustained ~50% of the historical total annual harvest. Also, since regulatory year 1999-2000, harvests have increased in the lower Kobuk drainage. By comparing harvest patterns to GUAs, we can see more spatial detail related to high-use areas in Unit 23. This comparison shows brown bear harvests have consistently been highest in three GUAs: Area 1 (Lisburne Hills, Wulik, and Kivalina drainages as well as lower Noatak River), Area 2 (middle Noatak drainage) and Area 6 (Squirrel, Aggie, and Eli drainages). The remaining GUAs (Areas 3, 4, 5 and 7) have experienced low brown bear harvests. Although both nonresident and resident hunters (including local subsistence hunters and non-local Alaskan residents) contribute to overall high harvests in Areas 1, 2, and 6, harvests by nonresident hunters have predominated in Area 1 and are on a par with resident harvests in Areas 2 and 6. High hunting effort has been focused in these GUAs because of: 1) proximity to communities (for subsistence harvests); 2) ease of hunting (for guides as well as nonresident and non-local resident hunters); and 3) combination hunting by moose and caribou hunters during the fall season (for non-local resident and nonresident hunters). Approximately 63% of the nonresident drawing permits will be divided equally among GUAs 1, 2, and 6. The remaining permits (approximately 37%) will be divided among GUAs 3, 4, 5, and 7. This proposal will increase the number of permits in low-use GUAs compared to historical harvests to help distribute hunting effort to the low-use areas of the unit. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Brown bear harvests could become further concentrated in high-use areas. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This will help prevent brown bears from being locally over-harvested in high-use areas. Additionally, the quality of trophy hunts may increase from encouraging hunters to use low-use areas. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Guides and nonresident hunters that want to hunt brown bears in low-use areas. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides and nonresident hunters that want to hunt brown bears in high-use areas. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Maintain the status quo. We rejected this because the concentration of brown bear harvests in some GUAs raises the possibility of localized over-harvests. This risk will increase if harvest by resident hunters increases. PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-048 ) ***************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 36 5 AAC 92.132(4). Bag limit for brown bear and 5 AAC 92.220(a)(5). Salvage of game meat, furs, and hides. This is a housekeeping proposal to clean up old

32

“brown bear management area” language that was inadvertently not changed when unit-based subsistence brown bear hunting regulations were adopted in 2004 and 2005. 92.132. Bag limit for brown bears. …..

(4) the bag limit for a resident hunting in Unit 9(B), all drainages in Unit 9(E) that drain into the Pacific Ocean between Cape Kumliun and the border of Unit 9(D) and Unit 9(E), Unit 17, Unit 18, that portion of Units 19(A) and 19(B) downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage, Unit 21(D), Unit 22, [ALL DRAINAGES IN] Unit 23 [EXCEPT FOR THE BALDWIN PENINSULA NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE], Unit 24, and Unit 26(A) with a subsistence brown bear registration permit is one bear per regulatory year; a bear taken under a registration permit in any if these areas will not count against the one bear every four regulatory years bag limit established for brown bears taken under a resident tag.

92.220. Salvage of game meat, furs, and hides. (a) ….

(5) all edible meat of a brown bear taken under a subsistence registration permit in Unit 9(B), all drainages in Unit 9(E) that drain into the Pacific Ocean between Cape Kumliun and the border of Unit 9(D) and Unit 9(E), Unit 17, Unit 18, that portion of Units 19(A) and 19(B) downstream of and including the Aniak River drainage, Unit 21(D), Unit 22, [ALL DRAINAGES IN] Unit 23 [EXCEPT FOR THE BALDWIN PENINSULA NORTH OF THE ARCTIC CIRCLE], Unit 24, and Unit 26(A), shall be salvaged for human consumption; salvage of the hide or skull is optional.

ISSUE: This proposal corrects inadvertent errors in regulation based on earlier action of the board. In 2004, references to Brown Bear Management Areas were removed by board action and unit-based subsistence brown bear regulations were adopted for the areas covered previously by the Chignik, Northwest Alaska, and Western Alaska brown bear management areas. However, portions of the codified regulations in 92.132(4) and 92.220 (a)(5) still make reference to a boundary associated with the Northwest Alaska Brown Bear Management Area in Unit 23. In 2005, the board adopted subsistence hunting regulations in Unit 23 and defined the hunt area as the entire unit. This housekeeping proposal accomplishes alignment of bag limit restrictions, salvage requirements, subsistence hunt areas (adopted in 2004) and subsistence hunting regulations (adopted in 2005) in Unit 23. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The subsistence brown bear regulations for Unit 23 will be inconsistent. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Provides clear hunting regulations for subsistence brown bear hunters in Unit 23. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? None. PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-049) *****************************************************************************

33

PROPOSAL 37 - 5 AAC 85.020. Hunting seasons and bag limits for brown bear and 92.067. Units 22 and 23 brown bear permits. Modify the distribution of drawing permits in Unit 23 as follows: Designate brown bear drawing permit hunt numbers to coincide with guide use areas throughout Unit 23, in accordance with the biological bear data on file. ISSUE: A disproportionate number of the total bear permits are being drawn for use in a guide use area where there is traditionally a lower density of brown bears. Currently all permits can be used in one area. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Lowest density bear areas will continue to suffer from high hunting pressure disproportionate to the entire unit. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, because it will decrease the hunting pressure on the lower density bear areas, while increasing the bear harvest in higher density areas. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? The department through more consistent bear management, the National Park Service, through percentage paying concession holders, and guides with higher bear density areas that can’t seem to draw fall permits on federal concessions. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Guides/outfitters in lower density areas who currently receive the majority of their permit applicants from large commercial booking agencies using computerized methods to flood the application market. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Making subunits in Unit 23 and drawing by each unit. The department has always opposed subunits in Unit 23. PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-042) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 38 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Increase the nonresident caribou bag limit in Unit 23. ISSUE: The reduction in the bag limit for nonresident caribou hunters in Unit 23, from five per year to one per year. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? I will no longer travel to Kotzebue to hunt caribou now that the bag limit has been reduced. It is very expensive to travel to such a remote location. The advantage and excitement that caribou hunting provided in Unit 23 was the increased bag limit. Without that, very few will be able to afford or want to spend a lot of hard earned money to hunt there. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes. The extra money generated with our license fees will be able to be used for game management research, and the protection of all wildlife not just caribou.

34

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Everyone involved with nonresident hunting: the airlines, the outfitter, the hotels (two nights in Anchorage and two nights in Kotzebue), and the restaurants in both cities as well as the stores in both cities (for buying supplies and gifts). Also, the meat processor and the taxi cabs in Kotzebue. In addition, and most important, of the six hunters including myself who flew out together, we gave at least nine caribou to the local food bank. In addition, we all gave all our extra food supplies which in itself would have fed a family of four for at least a week. Some of the guys even gave cash to the food bank to help out. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Everyone above and don’t forget all the future revenue that won’t be generated by us or others who we tell of our wonderful experiences. For example- I told two friends how beautiful Alaska is and how nice the people were and now they are coming up this year. One is going fishing with three others and the other is going hunting (caribou, moose, and black bear) with another friend. This probably wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for my input. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? I think it is very important that the department understand the local concern to see if they are warranted. If so, address those concerns and inform the hunters and outfitters ahead of time with these local concerns whether it is local customs or traditions that need to be respected. Maybe it’s both locals and hunters generally not getting along for whatever reason, and we should find a way to address those as well. I don’t think most people are the problem, but all it takes is a couple of bad ones to ruin it for all of us, and we shouldn’t let that happen. PROPOSED BY: Harry F. Branca, Jr. (HQ-07F-G-024) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 39 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Increase the nonresident bag limit for caribou as follows: Unit 23, nonresident bag limit: two caribou total. ISSUE: The nonresident caribou bag limit is based on unproven and unscientific perceptions that have no bearing in game management - that nonresident hunters are disrupting caribou migration. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued loss of opportunity for nonresident hunters, loss of income for the department, and harvest limits not based on game management principles. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local businesses, the department budget as well as nonresident hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Five caribou limit, but there are difficulties associated with handling and preserving the meat. PROPOSED BY: Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula Chapter of Safari Club International (HQ-07F-G-045) ******************************************************************************

35

PROPOSAL 40 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the bag limit for caribou as follows. Increase the current nonresident bag limit for caribou in Unit 23. ISSUE: Nonresident hunters are only allowed one caribou per year in Unit 23. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WAC) currently numbers over a half million animals and resident hunters have substantially large bag limits. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresident hunters will hunt other more accessible herds with higher bag limits such as the Mulchatna herd or Adak herd. Some may choose to hunt in Canada. The other herds are much smaller than the WAC herd and may be adversely impacted by additional hunting pressure. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allowing the estimated 270 hunters to purchase an additional caribou tag will put $100,000 in department’s budget to do more research or buy flight time for surveys or fund a position for study that would otherwise go unfunded; that would improve the quality of something. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Villagers in Kotzebue, the department, small business owners in Alaska, and the Board of Game. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one; maybe P.D. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Considered many other options and haven’t ruled any out. PROPOSED BY: Art Hughes (HQ-07F-G-056) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 41 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the bag limit for caribou as follows. Nonresidents hunters are allowed two caribou per season in Unit 23. ISSUE: Nonresident hunters are only allowed one caribou per year in Unit 23. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WAC) currently numbers over a half million animals and resident hunters have substantially large bag limits. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresident hunters will hunt other more accessible herds with higher bag limits such as the Mulchatna herd or Adak herd. Some may choose to hunt in Canada. The other herds are much smaller than the WAC herd and may be adversely impacted by additional hunting pressure. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allowing the estimated 270 hunters to purchase an additional caribou tag will put $100,000 in department’s budget to do more research or buy flight time for surveys or fund a position for study that would otherwise go unfunded; that would improve the quality of something.

36

WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Villagers in Kotzebue, the department, small business owners in Alaska, and the Board of Game. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one; maybe P.D. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Considered many other options and haven’t ruled any out. PROPOSED BY: Art Hughes (HQ-07F-G-057) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 42 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the bag limit for caribou as follows. Nonresidents hunters are allowed three caribou per season in Unit 23. ISSUE: Nonresident hunters are only allowed one caribou per year in Unit 23. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WAC) currently numbers over a half million animals and resident hunters have substantially large bag limits. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresident hunters will hunt other more accessible herds with higher bag limits such as the Mulchatna herd or Adak herd. Some may choose to hunt in Canada. The other herds are much smaller than the WAC herd and may be adversely impacted by additional hunting pressure. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allowing the estimated 270 hunters to purchase an additional caribou tag will put $100,000 in department’s budget to do more research or buy flight time for surveys or fund a position for study that would otherwise go unfunded; that would improve the quality of something. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Villagers in Kotzebue, the department, small business owners in Alaska, and the Board of Game. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one; maybe P.D. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Considered many other options and haven’t ruled any out. PROPOSED BY: Art Hughes (HQ-07F-G-058) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 43 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the bag limit for caribou as follows. Nonresident hunters are allowed four caribou per season in Unit 23. ISSUE: Nonresident hunters are only allowed one caribou per year in Unit 23. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WAC) currently numbers over a half million animals and resident hunters have substantially large bag limits.

37

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresident hunters will hunt other more accessible herds with higher bag limits such as the Mulchatna herd or Adak herd. Some may choose to hunt in Canada. The other herds are much smaller than the WAC herd and may be adversely impacted by additional hunting pressure. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Allowing the estimated 270 hunters to purchase an additional caribou tag will put $100,000 in department’s budget to do more research or buy flight time for surveys or fund a position for study that would otherwise go unfunded; that would improve the quality of something. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Villagers in Kotzebue, the department, small business owners in Alaska, and the Board of Game. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one; maybe P.D. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Considered many other options and haven’t ruled any out. PROPOSED BY: Art Hughes (HQ-07F-G-059) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 44 - 5 AAC 85.025. Hunting seasons and bag limits for caribou. Modify the bag limit for caribou as follows: Change the nonresident caribou bag limit to two caribou total for Units 23 and 26A. ISSUE: The range of the Western Arctic Caribou herd spans both Units 23 and 26A. Presently, different bag limits on the same caribou herd are inconsistent. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? More nonresident pressure, guided and through transporters, will shift to 26A, resulting in wanton waste and user conflicts similar to those the board has already addressed in Unit 23. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, reduces individual nonresident hunters’ impact on caribou numbers and reduces incentive for hunters to over utilize resources in an adjacent units with liberal bag limits. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Subsistence users in 26A and all users of 23 and 26A by spreading out caribou harvest locations. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Nonresident hunters who want to shoot more than two caribou. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Raising caribou limit to five to mesh with present caribou limit in 26A. This would encourage resource over utilization. PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-038) ******************************************************************************

38

PROPOSAL 45 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Extend the dates for resident moose season as follows: Unit 23 resident moose season September 1-30: one bull 50” or with 4 brow tines at least one side. ISSUE: Disparity of moose hunting opportunity between Alaska residents. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued unequal access to game resources owned equally by all state residents. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Resident moose hunters WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one, other than those who think local game is theirs for exclusive use. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Make resident moose seasons concurrent for all residents. Change to September 1-30 which is sufficient to provide opportunity. PROPOSED BY: Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula Chapter of Safari Club International (HQ-07F-G-046) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 46 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Change the registration process for moose as follows: Provide any or all of the following options for registration of Unit 23 moose hunts:

1. At anytime in Kotzebue or villages, or 2. At any Department of Fish and Game office statewide, or 3. Via the Internet

ISSUE: Unequal access, financial and time hardships for non-local Alaska residents to procure a registration permit for a “meat” moose. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued unequal opportunity and access for all resident Alaska hunters. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? N/A WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All resident hunters Alaska wide. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who think the moose belong to them. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula Chapter of Safari Club International (HQ-07F-G-047) ******************************************************************************

39

PROPOSAL 47 - 5 AAC 92.069. Units 21(D) and 24, Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, and Unit 23 moose drawing permits for nonresidents. Modify the requirements for nonresident hunting moose in Unit 23 as follows: All nonresident aliens and nonresidents must be accompanied by a licensed registered guide to hunt moose in Unit 23 or be accompanied by a relative within the second degree of kindred. ISSUE: Unsupervised, nonresident drop off moose hunters tying up drawing permits that could be used by fully supervised moose hunters. Citations are the norm and our limited moose resource is being abused. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Undersize bull moose will continue to be abandoned; wanton waste will continue to be prevalent as the troopers have seen in the past. License or tag requirements are often overlooked all the while giving state tourism a black eye. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Yes, by direct supervision and guidance of a trained and skilled professional guide (i.e. judging animal, packing meat, and avoiding bear conflict etc. Getting meat out of the field quickly. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? State Troopers, National Park Service, local natives, local businesses, guide operations and out of state hunters seeking a quality experience. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leaving the current system in place. It’s not working and this proposal will work. PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-039) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 48 - 5 AAC 85.050. Hunting seasons and bag limits for musk ox. Provide a nonresident drawing hunt for musk ox: Amend resident provisions for hunting musk ox to include nonresidents under the same drawing permit system. ISSUE: Nonresidents are not included in the drawing permit hunt for musk ox in Unit 23. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresidents will continue to be excluded from hunting musk ox in Unit 23 at a time when musk ox numbers are increasing. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No change. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local businesses and individuals who provide food, lodging, provisions, and other hunting related services, as well as nonresident hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one.

40

OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leave the same regulations in place and refer nonresidents to Canada to hunt musk ox. PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-036) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 49 - 5 AAC 85.055. Hunting seasons and bag limits for Dall sheep. Modify the bag limit for sheep follows: All successful sheep applicants in Unit 23 shall not be eligible to apply again for four years. ISSUE: The waiting period for successful sheep applicants is not long enough. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Drawing opportunities are decreased for unsuccessful applicants. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No change. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? All previously unsuccessful sheep applicants will have an increased opportunity to draw a permit. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Applicants who are repeatedly successful. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Once in a lifetime draw. Even though this is the case in some lower 48 states, Alaska is not ready for it. PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-040) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 50 - 5 AAC 85.056. Hunting seasons and bag limits for wolf. Modify the season dates for hunting wolf as follows: Amend the current wolf season dates for residents and nonresidents in Units 23 and 26A to August 10 - May 31. ISSUE: The present dates for the wolf hunting season are not concurrent with bear hunting season. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Less wolves will be harvested in high density situations. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No change. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Resident and nonresident spring bear hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Keeping the dates the same will cause missed opportunities.

41

PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-037) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 51 - 5 AAC 92.069. Units 21(D) and 24; Koyukuk Controlled Use Area, and Unit 23 moose drawing permits for nonresidents: Require guide client agreements for all big game drawing hunts in Unit 23. All nonresidents and nonresident aliens drawing applicants in Unit 23 must have a signed contract with a current licensed and approved registered guide-outfitter in order to qualify for a drawing permit, except where second degree of kindred is involved. ISSUE: Nonresidents and nonresident aliens successfully draw permits for species requiring a registered guide by state law. Many permittees do not understand that only certain guide-outfitters may guide them in the permit area and end up confused, with the permit going unused. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Rather than satisfy biological objectives, permit allocations will not reflect hunting or harvest activity for nonresidents/nonresident aliens. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No change. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Nonresident/nonresident alien hunters who will be better informed and knowledgeable about hunt offerings. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? This method is in place in Kodiak and is working and can be used as the model. PROPOSED BY: Dave Leonard (HQ-07F-G-041) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 52 - 5 AAC 92.540(9). Controlled Use Areas. Extend the closure dates for the Noatak Controlled Use Area as follows: Unit 23, Noatak Controlled Use Area: “The Noatak Controlled Use Area is closed for the period August 25 - October 30 [AUGUST 25 - SEPTEMBER 15] to the use of aircraft in any manner either for hunting of ungulate, bear, wolf, wolverine, or for transportation of hunters or harvested species. This does not apply to the transportation of hunters or parts of ungulate, bear, wolf, or wolverine by regularly scheduled flights to communities by carriers that normally provide scheduled air service. The Noatak Controlled Use Area consists of that portion of Unit 23 in a corridor extending five miles on either side of the Noatak River beginning at the mouth of the Noatak River, and extending upstream to the mouth of Sapun Creek.” ISSUE: Much has changed since the village of Noatak first requested the prohibition on the use of aircraft on the Noatak drainage in 1984. With climate change the Western Arctic caribou are migrating later and later and freeze up of river and streams is not until mid-October. Most of the herd does not migrate through until after September 15. Conflict with sports hunters is creating hardship for the hunters of Noatak as transporters are now flying in hunters into the controlled use

42

area while the local hunters are trying to harvest caribou during their migration. The extension of the closed period will reduce this conflict and provide for subsistence taking of caribou by the residents of Noatak. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? It will improve the chances of the subsistence users in harvesting caribou as there will be less interruption and conflict with fly-in sport hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Some sport and recreational hunting will be affected but they can be flown into other areas where there is less conflict with subsistence hunting. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Native Village of Noatak (HQ-07F-G-012) ******************************************************************************

43

Unit 26 – BARROW AREA

PROPOSAL 53 - 5 AAC 85.045. Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Modify the moose hunt area and permit distribution as follows: Unit 26A/Colville River moose drawing permits: The Anaktuvuk River drainage: 10 drawing permits, allocated as follows: Residents – 8 permits Nonresidents – 2 permits The Colville River drainage upstream from the Anaktuvuk River drainage to the Chandler River drainage, including the Chandler River drainage: 10 drawing permits, allocated as follows: Residents – 8 permits Nonresidents – 2 permits The Colville River drainage upstream from the Chandler River drainage: 10 drawing permits, allocated as follows: Residents – 8 permits Nonresidents – 2 permits Drawing permit season: September 1-15 Bag limit: Residents – One bull Nonresidents – One bull with 50 inch antlers or antlers with three or more brow tines on at least one side ISSUE: Distribution and allocation of drawing permits for moose in Unit 26A. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Moose hunting will be concentrated in that portion of 26A where access is easy and more remote sections of 26A will receive little or no hunting effort. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal will improve the quality of the hunt by dispersing the hunting effort. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those hunters interested in a high quality hunt who also wish to see the hunting effort in 26A distributed over the entire area open to moose hunting. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? N/A PROPOSED BY: Richard A. Guthrie (HQ-07F-G-029) ****************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 54 - 5 AAC 85.045(a)(24). Hunting seasons and bag limits for moose. Within Unit 26A, modify the drawing permit hunt to allow a limited number of nonresident permits.

44

Resident Open Season (Subsistence and Nonresident Units and Bag Limits General Hunts) Open Season (24) Unit 26A, that portion in the Colville River drainage upstream from and including the Anaktuvuk River drainage 1 bull; or Aug. 1—Sept.14 No open season. 1 bull by drawing permit only; Sept. 1—Sept. 14 Sept. 1—Sept. 14 up to 40 permits may be issued; up to XX percent of the permits may be issued to nonresident hunters; or 1 moose; a person may Feb. 15-Apr. 15 No open season. not take a calf or a cow accompanied by a calf … ISSUE: The Colville River moose population has gradually increased since a 75 percent decline in the early 1990s. In 2001, 2003, and 2005 the board passed proposals that gradually extended the hunt area and season, and allowed limited use of aircraft in a drawing hunt to provide more hunting opportunity. The moose population has continued to grow with the total population count increasing from 576 to 998 between 2002 and 2005. There has not been a census since 2005, but trend counts indicate continued population growth. Considering this healthy growth rate, it is safe to allow a limited nonresident hunt in the portion of the unit experiencing the greatest population recovery. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Nonresident moose hunters would be unnecessarily restricted. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Nonresidents who want to hunt moose on the North Slope and guides who service the hunters. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. This is a proposed reallocation of some permits to nonresidents. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leaving the regulation as is, but this would result in lost hunting opportunity for nonresident hunters. PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-053) *****************************************************************************

45

PROPOSAL 55 - 5 AAC 92.540 (10)(B) Controlled use areas. Modify the boundary of the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area as follows: (B) the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area:

(i) the area consisting of a 25 mile radius in all directions from Anaktuvuk Pass within Unit 26 [THE ANAKTUVUK RIVER DRAINAGE]; (ii) [UNTIL JULY 1, 2008,] the area is closed to the use of aircraft for hunting caribou, including the transportation of caribou hunters, their hunting gear, or parts of caribou from August 15 through October 15; however, this provision does not apply to the transportation of caribou hunters, their hunting gear, or parts of caribou by aircraft between publicly owned airports

ISSUE: Subsistence hunters of Anaktuvuk Pass believe that aircraft used to transport sport hunters in the vicinity of Anaktuvuk Pass causes disturbance to caribou and impedes the movement pattern of the fall caribou migration through Anaktuvuk Pass. Because 80% of the meat consumed by residents of Anaktuvuk Pass is caribou, any negative impact of aircraft disturbance has disproportionate negative impacts on their livelihood. Access to hunting grounds by residents of Anaktuvuk Pass has geographical and legal limitations because of restrictions on ATV use in Gates of the Artic National Park. There is no river access to caribou. Economic constraints of Anaktuvuk residents preclude equal access to caribou between subsistence hunters and sport hunters using aircraft. The regulation that establishes aircraft restrictions for the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area has a sunset date of July 1, 2008. After that time, aircraft use would be permitted in the area north of the village causing the impacts described above. This proposal offers an aircraft restricted area that has a smaller size and support from the community and guides operating in the area. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Current aircraft restrictions in the Anaktuvuk Pass area will go away at the end of this regulatory year. Local hunters will be unnecessarily limited to access to caribou. Hunters using aircraft within 25 miles north of the village may divert caribou migrations that would normally pass through Anaktuvuk Pass. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? Shorter travel distances for subsistence hunters means better chance for improved quality of meat brought back to the village. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Local residents of Anaktuvuk Pass. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Sport hunters will experience a slight reduction of the geographical range from which they can access caribou via aircraft. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Leave the regulations as they are (AKP CUA regulations would sunset), but this would unnecessarily risk access to foods required by residents of Anaktuvuk Pass for their sustenance. Renew the existing APCUA, but this would include an unnecessarily large portion of the Anaktuvuk River drainage beyond the 25 mile zone. PROPOSED BY: North Slope Borough Fish and Game Management Committee (HQ-07F-G-031) ******************************************************************************

46

PROPOSAL 56 5 AAC 92.540(10)(B). Controlled use areas. This placeholder proposal provides notice that the regulation governing caribou hunting with aircraft in Unit 26A in the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area remains in effect only until July 1, 2008.

(B) the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area: (i) the area consists of the Anaktuvuk River drainage; (ii) until July 1, 2008, the area is closed to the use of aircraft for hunting

caribou, including the transportation of caribou hunters, their hunting gear, or parts of caribou from August 15 through October 15; however, this provision does not apply to the transportation of caribou hunters, their hunting gear, or parts of caribou by aircraft between publicly owned airports;

ISSUE: During the November 2005 meeting, the Board of Game closed the Anaktuvuk River drainage to hunters using aircraft for access to caribou during the period August 15 through October 15. The Board wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of the area closure during the subsequent two years and they established a sunset date when the regulation would be eliminated if no action was taken. Board action is needed to extend, renew, or modify the CUA restrictions affecting caribou hunting in the Anaktuvuk River drainage. This placeholder proposal allows this topic to be considered and discussed at the November 2007 board meeting in Bethel. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? The controlled use area will no longer exist after July 1, 2008, and hunters will be allowed to use aircraft to access the area for caribou hunting. WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Aircraft users who hunt caribou. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? People who want aircraft restrictions for caribou hunting. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? PROPOSED BY: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (HQ-07F-G-055) ***************************************************************************** PROPOSAL 57 - 5 AAC 92.540(10)(B). Controlled use areas. Modify the boundary of the Controlled Use Area as follows: Reestablish the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area (APCUA) as follows: The APCUA is that area within a radius of 25 statute miles of Anaktuvuk Pass. Land within Gates of the Arctic National Preserve would be excluded from the APCUA. ISSUE: During the November 2005 board meeting, the board created the Anaktuvuk Pass Controlled Use Area. This area was established for two years. I believe the APCUA as established is much too large and encloses far too large of an area for use of an aircraft for caribou hunting. WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? If the APCUA is renewed as it was originally established, this large area will remain closed to aircraft use for caribou hunting. There is no valid biological reason that this large area should be closed to the use of aircraft.

47

WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This proposal would greatly improve the hunting opportunity for caribou in the Anaktuvuk River drainage. WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? People who access the Anaktuvuk River drainage by use of aircraft. Most of this drainage is only accessible by aircraft from August 15-October 15. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? No one. Few hunters access the Anaktuvuk River drainage beyond 25 miles from Anaktuvuk Pass by means other than aircraft from August 15-October 15. OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED? Eliminate the APCUA. This would not be supported by other users. PROPOSED BY: Richard A. Guthrie (HQ-07F-G-030) ******************************************************************************